http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4861
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-19 20:44 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > the only thing I'm worried about, is increasing that timeout to 10 seconds. > given that we currently hang waiting for the response, and then razor, pyzor > and > SPF are all waited for on top of that, that's a *long* time :( > > what about 8 secs? Ditto. I was about to suggest 7 seconds myself. If the typical response arrives in 3 seconds, I'd say (without any data to suggest a better value) twice as long should be sufficient. I don't think there's much point in waiting longer than whatever ~90% of responses take. Also, FWIW, I'd speculate (without knowing anything about how the DCC backend is implemented) that queries more likely to get a positive response would receive a response faster than queries least likely to get a positive response since they'd be more likely to have the required data in memory. I know that this appears to be the case with April's Outbound Index service. (In reply to comment #9) > or when a client has sent more than 400,000 requests per day and the server > DoS > defenses are delaying responses by 4 seconds are many seconds needed." We shouldn't care about delays/timeouts caused by this. In fact, DCC would be better off if these queries timed out since the user might clue in to the problem and arrange peering. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
