Re: balsa no-thread crash detected

[Timothy Alan Chandler <fusion heavywater net>]

On 2001.08.24 08:00 Brian Stafford wrote:

> If libESMTP in balsa works for you why use another configuration to
> achieve the same thing?  I don't understand.  Is Balsa+libESMTP less
> efficient than Balsa+qmail's sendmail?  Or are you saying that you
> don't want to use libESMTP because measurements on other SMTP clients
> showed poor performance wrt QMQP?  Your previous message implies you
> can't adopt libESMTP because the SMTP reputation is already tarnished
> by your previous measurements.

Because at the time, we lacked any other choice.

Nothing supported libESMTP, and quite frankly I didn't know it even
existed.  When switching to QMQP we noticed a significant decrease in
resource usage on the mail server (20-25% decrease overall).  Grant it,
prior to using QMQP we had to depend on less than efficient SMTP
implementations.  I don't know if balsa+libESMTP is more efficient than
balsa+sendmail.QMQP or even as efficient, but I plan on finding out when
time permits.

There is nothing stopping us from adopting SMTP via libESMTP, it will just
take more time and effort than it did to adopt QMQP since it has to be
hardcoded in all MUA in use.  Time and effort I'm not willing to spend
unless I'm sure libESMTP can achieve the same overall performance.

-tac