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