Actually, I do need choplist (or something similar). All of the lists I am sending out are time sensitive (stock market info and news), so the faster I can get them out the better. By pipelining messages to remote mail servers instead of opening a bunch of separate connections, I'm less likely to kill the remote ones with too much mail (I'm using qmail and it doesn't have rate limiting). The list server uses my smarthost (qmail) as a relay, and the smarthost directs outgoing mail to a cluster of QMTP servers (qmail, obviously) that actually do the sending. I'm currently using ezmlm, and while it works, it's becoming a nightmare to administer with all of the lists and subscribers we have. I'm not a mail admin, I'm a network guy, but this mailing list BS is starting to take up too much of my time, and I need to get something built which I don't need to touch for a very long time. Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: Chad C. Walstrom [mailto:chewie at wookimus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:57 PM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [TCLUG] Smartlist performance > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 01:23:24PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > > Has anyone used Smartlist? How does it perform? (compared to other > > list managers if you know) The main thing that caught my eye with > > Smartlist is it's choplist program that will group all of the > > recipient's on a list together and put them in their own > message (all > > aol.com recipients get grouped in a message, all yahoo.com > get grouped > > in another, and so on). That way, I can pipeline messages > to remote > > hosts instead of opening up a separate connection for each message, > > using much less resources. > > > > So, Smartlist users, anyone? > > > > Does anyone know of any other mailing list managers that > will split up > > messages like choplist will? > > Smartlist is used by the Debian organization to manage all of > their email lists. Follow the links regarding lists at http://www.debian.org. You really shouldn't need choplist if you're using qmail or postfix, though. They're much better suited for large volumes of mail. Also, wasn't there an email server out there called zmailer or something? Ah, yes. Here it is: Package: zmailer Priority: extra Section: mail Installed-Size: 3096 Maintainer: Hector Garcia <hector at debian.org> Architecture: i386 Version: 2.99.55-1 Provides: mail-transport-agent Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.3-7), libdb2 (>= 2:2.7.7-4), libgdbmg1, netbase Suggests: mail-reader, metamail Conflicts: mail-transport-agent Filename: pool/main/z/zmailer/zmailer_2.99.55-1_i386.deb Size: 1130140 MD5sum: 6dec14e51b37d3151712ded9c3cd58fd Description: Mailer for Extreme Performance Demands This is a package that implements an internet Message Transfer Agent called ZMailer. It is intended for gateways or mail servers or other large site environments that have extreme demands on the abilities of the mailer. It was motivated by the problems of the Sendmail design in such situations. ZMailer is one of the mailers able to deal with huge quantities of mail and is more efficient any other mailer, qmail included, mostly due to its excellent queueing algorithms. . Most users don't need this package -- for most users, sendmail or exim or smail will suffice. -- Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr Key fingerprint = B4AB D627 9CBD 687E 7A31 1950 0CC7 0B18 206C 5AFD