On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I don't believe that legitimate senders of email are likely to commonly see >>> really long delays at the end of data, and I don't much care if other >>> senders are inconvenienced. >> >> As a sender, over the years, I've seen duplicate messages to Y! >> increase. The MTA we use has RFC suggested limits. We increased those >> limits to reduce duplicates. We didn't yell at Y! that they should >> follow the RFC better. It was easy to visualize that with the massive >> amount of mailboxes they have that things would take longer than they >> should from time to time. >> >> So I find it strange that some folks are seeking to suggest lower >> values instead of realizing that those MTA clients are making a >> conscience decision to not follow RFC guidelines at the risk of >> increased duplicates. I'd say reducing those numbers would be an >> endorsement of their bad behaviour. I don't think that is something we >> should be doing. >> >> If clarification is sought, I like John's language. I'd also say keep >> the 10 minute time-out. Otherwise I think the existing language is >> fine. > > I'm not sure what you're responding to here. It doesn't appear to > be anything implied in the mail of mine you're responding to - > neither the quoted sentence nor the rest of it. > > I'm certainly not suggesting lower timeout values.
Oh, sorry about that. I wasn't implying you suggested that. I'm basically in agreement with what you said, except that I have seen longer delays. However I don't view those delays as an inconvenience, just a fact of life in the fight against spam. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA
