----- Original Message -----
From: "Theo Schlossnagle" <jesus(_at_)omniti(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [SPF-Discuss] Performance issues
Try not using them -- works well for countless server implementations.
Oh, I don't think I can anymore. <g> Too well embedded in threaded design
concepts. :-)
We agree on the definition of "total transaction time". We don't agree
on its importance. If a transaction takes 1 second or 10 seconds, it
doesn't matter. MTA->MTA deliveries happen behind-the-scenes anyway.
As long as I can ensure that the transaction time doesn't exceed X and
that my throughput is not effected, then all is well.
Well, for me, I wish to minimize TTT as that reflects the scalability of
the package. If that means that TTT < X for a particular started level of
documented Performance Feature, then ok.
I would, however, be very interested in any information on the query
traffic patterns when performing SPF before DNS RBL as opposed to doing
it after. My hunch is SPF-first is better, but I'd be happy to change
my outlook based on evidence.
Better in what way?
As far as DNS performance, it is good point to look at. However, unless
SPF can replace RBL functionality, I sincerely doubt seeing RBL usage go
down in lieu of using SPF instead. Apples and oranges, really. It is just
two different pieces information gained; one is sending machine validation,
the other seeks reputation.
But then again, I'm sure there are those who believe validating the sending
machine is all you need, regardless if its reputation.
In any case, we are doing some final performance testing with a beta team.
I tried to provide some info in this area in the near future.
Ciao
---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
support: http://www.winserver.com
sales: http://www.santronics.com