Mark,

I  think what you need to do is set up a lab server and establish in a
controlled  environment  that  requesting nonexistent URLs (as that is
the  way  a  request  for,  say  '...cmd.exe'  is  parsed by IMail Web
Messaging)  at  a  rate  of  one  request every 2-3 minutes renders WM
useless.

Such  is  not  the  prevailing real-world experience of the IMail user
community,  nor  the laboratory experience that Terry put together. WM
is  far  more  sensitive  than  IIS  to  a  large number of concurrent
requests  (let's  say  "large" starts at 10 per second or higher, just
for  the sake of argument), be they for existing or nonexistent pages.
But  you  must  remember  that  you're  talking  about a product rated
publicly  by  its  vendor  to only handle 1024 concurrent connections,
obviously   way,   way   less  than  a  plain-vanilla  IIS  or  Apache
installation  could  claim.  And  the product is not only a static web
server;  it's a web server, database server, and application server in
one--not  to  mention the fact that it's also running full-fledged MTA
services   at  the  same  time--and  similarly  ambitious  third-party
products  suffer,  too,  from  a  relatively  low usage threshold when
compared to plain old web servers.

Should  it be more resilient? Absolutely! Is it frustrating to have to
treat  it  with  kid  gloves even with low legitimate usage--including
placing  emphasis  on  border  routers and firewalls to keep it out of
harm's way? Yes. But is it as fragile as you're making it out to be? I
don't  think  so.  But please test and let us know the test config and
results.

-Sandy


To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/

Reply via email to