Re: Sendmail with deliver, procmail, or mailagent?

[Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net>]

-- 
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net>                 http://www.gate.net/~storm/

On 9 Oct 1997, Ben Pfaff wrote:

> Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net> writes:
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net> wrote:
> > > > My primary concern here is that spawning an extra shell process for each
> > > > mail delivery increases mail delivery overhead dramatically.  I'd prefer
> > > > sendmail's current knowledge of what it is delivering to, so it can
> > > > support its features directly.  Thinking about it, I believe deliver and
> > > > procmail need slightly different feature listings for sendmail, which
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > would make a generic script even more sub-optimal.
> > > 
> > > Then don't spawn an extra process.  Shell scripts that execute a single
> > > command can use "exec".
> > 
> > The problem is that the shell process needs to run so it knows to run
> > exec.  Sendmail at the moment doesn't need that shell process, so invoking
> > it is overhead we don't need.
> 
> So write a tiny C program that does the same thing as the tiny shell
> script.  It wouldn't be that difficult and the overhead would be
> greatly lessened.

Still the extra spawn overhead.  Letting sendmail know about it is a
better option less likely to break anything.



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .