Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com> Wed, 02 June 1993 18:29 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12067; 2 Jun 93 14:29 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12063; 2 Jun 93 14:29 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06567; 2 Jun 93 14:29 EDT
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.04046-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 18:21:21 +0100
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by glengoyne.isode.com with SMTP (PP) id <08364-0@glengoyne.isode.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 1993 18:24:12 +0100
To: Erik Skovgaard <eskovgaa@cue.bc.ca>
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
Phone: +44-71-721-7582
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 31 May 1993 09:18:32 -0700. <9305311618.AA21232@cue.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1993 18:24:07 +0100
Message-ID: <8361.739041847@isode.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
Erik, I hate to drag this out, but.... >From: eskovgaa@cue.bc.ca (Erik Skovgaard) >To: j.onions@nexor.co.uk >Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question >Date: Mon, 31 May 93 09:18:32 -0700 >Peace! Great sentiment! Pity that it is not reflected in the rest of this message. >As you point out, there are two "versions" of PP: the public and the >commercial one. Surely, the commercial version has been enhanced? Yes, very definitely. However, this does not invalidate the quality of the public version. > >Most of the current commercial versions are based on many ye{ars of >development and in the range of $2-10M of development cost. You may >argue that some of this effort may not be optimal in terms of the >productivity of the developers, but I still suggest (hopefully without >offending anybody) that some of these commercial implementations may >be a little more mature then the public {version of PP.{ The public PP has probably had 20-30 person-years of effort. If this is costed at a commercial rate, the price is in the same ballpark. Basically, you are saying that because lots of money has been spent on it, it must be good. I'd recommend re-reading "The mythical man month". The practical evidence that I have seen, and that Julian so carefully cites, does not in any sense back up the view that the non-PP commercial implementations are more mature. > >Again, my intent was not to criticize PP, merely to put things in proper >perspective. Comparing RFC-822 mailers that have been around for a >long time with a relatively new piece of code strikes me as unreasonable >and then on top of that judge a set of international standards based >on one product was what got me going. Fundamentally disagree. The installed base must be a key comparison metric. If you are seriously expecting people to move to X.400, you need to deliver technology that is quantifiably better than the installed base. >For the hardware you mention I would expect a throughput of 5-10,000 >messages per hour or better. I often use a message size of 1K since >this used to be an industry average (actually, it used to be 800 bytes), >but these days when people send binary files this may not be a good >test anymore. I'd be interested to see figures for other MTAs. Needs to be sustained load in an operational environment - burst load in a test environment is much much easier. Sustaining 10,000 messages per hour would be impressive. > >Cheers, ....Erik. > I'll stop now. Steve
- Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Tony Genovese
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Alf Hansen
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question James (J.K.) Ko
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Tony Genovese
- re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Huizer
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question James (J.K.) Ko
- re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Tony Genovese
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Colin Robbins
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Marco A. Hernandez
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Huizer
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Kille
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Alan.Young
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Julian Onions
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question pays
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Alf Hansen
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Sylvain Langlois
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Kille
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard