On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
> The protocol authors undoubtedly realized that a site could control
> their level of SMTP traffic simply by refusing connections at a
> preconfigured threshold and reallowing them at another, lower
> threshold. Relying on the remote site to Do The Right Thing is folly
> because (a) not all remote sites are nice guys, and (b) even the nice
> guys have no idea what your resources are--nor, in my opinion, should
> they have to try to deduce them or assume they're minimal.
This stuff was designed at a time when (a) all remote sites WERE nice
guys, and (b) everyone was clever enough to know what their resources are.
> Replace it with software that, for the umpteenth time, doesn't accept
> connections it can't handle. If ten SMTP sessions are all you can
> handle with your bandwidth, don't accept more than ten simultaneous
> connections. Even sendmail can approximate this with
> maxdaemonchildren.
If I only have the CPU and memory resources to support ten simultaneous
listeners, you can deliver mail to me much more efficiently by sending all
of it to one listener. This has nothing to do with throttling bandwidth.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG
2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
