> Keep in mind that known message sources would not be delayed - only > new, unknown sources. This amounts in principle to an automatic > management of QOS - giving some preference to traffic that is > already established.
I understand the idea, but I still disagree strongly about its viability. > An installation with a low tolerance for delay might set that delay to 2 > hours or even less. This is often within the range of delays that might > normally be experienced due to queue run cycles and so forth... Not on systems we manage. If 2 hours were the average delivery delay, e-mail would not have achieved mission-critical status. Like I said before, 5-10 minutes can be written off. 2 hours is *always* remarked upon by users. With sufficient technical explanation, smoothing over, or obfuscation, users can tolerate such *occasional* shocks and still keep their faith in SMTP. The more often it happens, and especially if such delays are a *feature*, the less people will use SMTP (or your services). > Some systems might establish different "quarantine periods" for > different groups of users... for example setting a high quarantine > period for the rank-and file of email addresses - those that would > almost exclusively be receiving mail from already known senders... "Almost exclusively" is not "exclusively," and the difference is HUGE and deal-killing, in my take. It's not just "publicized" addresses that receive mail from new, vitally important senders. That's not true in the real world. > In this context one might almost make the argument that a message > from an unknown sender to an unpublished email address has a very > high likelihood of being spam on that basis alone... ??? What do you mean by "unpublished," actually? > If the messages were delivered to a web-readable file of any kind > then someone would presumably need to move them to the appropriate > location at some point... No, that wasn't what I meant. I meant a "purgatory" MBX readable *by the recipient* that is also managed by a background janitorial process that either "stamps" a message as legit and moves it to the originally intended subarea (not always Main), or "stomps" a message as spam and deletes it. What this would allow is that closely attended mailboxes will always be able to receive all mail nearly as quickly as currently possible (with the extra step of scanning the purgatory mailbox if over the web; on a POP3 client, the <username-purgatory> mailbox could be downloaded separately into the Inbox), while mailboxes that are unattended (lunch, nighttime, unpermissioned users) will enjoy the full benefits of your system. > As a tunable capability this mechanism _might_ be a strong tool to > have available for some systems. As with any powerful tool it would > have to be used carefully. I see it as having the most utility between, say, the hours of midnight and 6 a.m....hours when lots of legit mail (bulletins and the like) comes in, accompanied by lots of spam--yet none of the legit mail needs to be read until the start of the working day. -Sandy ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
