On Aug 4, 2013, at 21:08, Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote:
> On 2013-07-31 1:44 PM, Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote: >> On 2013-07-31 1:23 PM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) >> <wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)> wrote: >>> That *is* >>> a problem. Postfix will slow down and eventually hang >>> up when a client sends too many commands that cause an error >>> reply (as in VERY with a non-existent recipient). >>> >>> To make this robust the verified MUST disconnect after each probe. >> >> Thanks, I'm passing this on to their support team. > > Ok, I got the following response... is doing as they are recommending an > acceptable way to resolve this issue? > >> We are set up for performance with VRFY probes and by modifying your postfix >> config file so postfix will not nave a performance issue by setting postfix >> option smtpd_soft_error_limit to be larger than smtpd_hard_error_limit. >> >> This can be done by setting set "-o smtpd_soft_error_limit=1001 -o >> smtpd_hard_error_limit=1000" in his postfix config file. > > I'm fine doing this, as long as this isn't going to cause other issues or > have unintended consequences. > > Note: my postfix server *only* accepts inbound connections (including VRFY > probes) from their netblocks. It's your server, but if it were mine, I'd steer clear of them if this is the argument they come back with. Even on busier setups a proper disconnect should not be a problem, as long as they are not being daft and sending a VRFY probe for every incoming message, but rather using some kind of caching mechanism. In other words, I just would not trust them to be the gateway for all incoming mail. Who knows what else they take performance shortcuts on, and crooked workarounds like these have a tendency to come back and bite you in the arse at the most inconvenient times. Just my opinion, though. YMMV :-) Mvg, Joni
