[142240] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address Assignment Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Jun 20 09:53:33 2011
To: Steve Richardson <steverich.nanog@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 EDT."
<BANLkTimtqTuH9JuCP3xOH22Fc8oZJ0EnAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:52:56 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1308577975_2807P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 EDT, Steve Richardson said:
> *definitely* concerns me. One thing they do say is that they need
> several IPs per block to assign to their MTAs to handle such a large
> amount of email (3 to 5 million per day). Being primarily focused on
> layers 1 through 4, I don't have an incredible amount of experience
> with high volume email server configuration, so I have no idea if they
> are feeding me a line of BS or not.
It's BS. 5M a day is only about 60 per second, not at all a problem for a
single IP address running properly configured SMTP software.
For comparison, in the mid-90s, I was moving 1M RCPT TO's a day (and probably
half that number of envelopes) on a Listserv host using Sendmail on an IBM
RS6000-220 - a whole whopping 66MZ Power 604E processor and something like 64M
of RAM (The same basic firepower as an old Apple 6600 Mac, if you remember
them...) Doing 10M messages a day on a single box is *easy* these days - the
hardest part is getting a disk subsystem that survives all the fsync() beating
most MTAs like to dish out....
--==_Exmh_1308577975_2807P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFN/1C3cC3lWbTT17ARAv2tAKDg3cLDwqRAiKesaH9H4NQp8pbBGACeK2w6
Z8Mw+1kgv5KZvhxsKPdEhP8=
=cbK9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1308577975_2807P--
