On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:49:31AM +0100, the entity calling itself Daniel Hartmeier stated:
> > Thanks for your encouragement. Maybe I'm reading the pfTop output > > incorrectly, but doesn't it say that _my_ resource cost on this > > transaction was 335K packets and 13 MBytes of bandwidth? If so, I > > wouldn't call this "no effect" on my resources. > > Obviously, it costs you as much bandwidth as it costs the sender, as any > packet the peer sends, you receive and vice versa. But you don't waste as > much CPU cycles, disk space and memory as the peer does. You might have > delayed the entire queue of the sender by two days, who knows ;) Yes - I think that's called "The Law of Conservation of Packets" :) Not being familiar with SMTP/ESMTP I guess I was just surprised that there were so many of them. > 13MB in 48 hours (that's just 78 bytes per second) is considered a tiny > stream by most people. If, for some reason, this means significant cost > for you, don't run spamd. Just blocking the port with RST is cheaper. I guess it probably is, but it seems significant for 1 single spam host (to me, anyway). I don't suppose you could switch to block via RST at some packet/byte count threshold, eh? Thanks for the insight, Jay
