home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.comm:12509 comp.sys.mac.apps:19129
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!MacUserLabs
- From: MacUserLabs@cup.portal.com (Stephan - Somogyi)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.sys.mac.apps
- Subject: QM NameServers and QM over TCP/IP (was: QM vs Eudora/POP)
- Message-ID: <72628@cup.portal.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 11:53:50 PST
- Organization: The Portal System (TM)
- Distribution: world
- References: <1992Dec16.003013.3027@NOC.Vitalink.COM>
- <BzqE9G.8no@SSD.intel.com> <C01IK5.64A@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- <sdorner-291292174426@dorner.slip.uiuc.edu> <C033KD.MDr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Lines: 23
-
- jjmckay@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim McKay) writes:
-
- >Supposedly unlimited. Of course I've personally never tested that so I can
- >just say that about 200 users works fine and with quick service. Argonne
- >National Lab has one of the largest QuickMail systems I know of and would
- >guess they have quite a few more users than that on their QM "Nameserver",
- >geussing at least 500.
-
- 500 is nothing -- I have that number in my NameServer namespace without
- even trying hard :-)
-
- Last time I asked CE, they said that they knew of several sites with
- roughly 10k entries in their NameServer databases. I'm going to have a need
- for about 6k total shortly, so we'll see what happens.
-
- As an aside, over the last weeks I've gotten IP-based QuickMail running
- server-to-server via the QuickMail-Direct bridge. We're using it to connect
- several geographically disparate sites over our corporate WAN. There is no
- reason at all that this scheme wouldn't work over the Internet as well.
- Beats the heck out of using modems.
-
- __________________________________________________________________________
- Stephan Somogyi critical pathologist MacUser
-