> On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> > I did a 10-second scan of 5321 and didn't find the relevant text, but
> I'd like
> > to resolve -- and preferably squash -- this issue quickly.
> Just came into the office and saw nearly 20 emails on this. Great
> conversation, but not "quickly" :)
> At 19:27 09-08-10, [email protected] wrote:
> > I have a somewhat different take on this. First of all, I have always
> > thought the admonition that you MUST minimize the amount of time spent
> > before responding to the trailing dot to the greatest extent possible
> > was, well, bunk.
> > (It's also an effectively unenforceable MUST - who can say you've done
> > all you can or not? - which is bad in its own right.) While it is
> > important not to spend too much time, the difference between a
> > millisecond delay and a 2 second delay is, in this situation, not
> worth worrying about.
> Completely agree for several reasons, including that the only senders
> that take advantage of "as fast as you can process" scenarios are
> spammers. If I take a second or two to accept a message from a legit
> sender they neither know nor care. But to a spammer, the faster we
> receive and delivery the more mail gets through before a content filter
> or blocklist can update. We saw this happen when we migrated to our
> current system 3 years ago. Spam was delivered at many hundreds of
> times faster than mail from AOL, Hotmail and Gmail combined. Responding
> as quickly as my system will allow with <CRLF>.<CRLF> helps no one I
> want to help.
You know, that's very nicely put. I'm going to use that last line the next time
this comes up.
Ned
