Jason Haar wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:09:39PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
>> First of all, this is not a debate...
> 
> I think it is.

yeah, me too. :) We're trying to convince you to include the ability
to return a 550 from q-s. Sounds like a debate to me. 


> I think this is *exactly* the place to debate such things. Where else
> should such thing be discussed?
> 
>> Personally, I 550 for the simple fact that its less overhead than
>> forking a call to qmail-queue to inject (a|several) custom crafted
>> notification message.   Does that make it better?  Maybe.. Maybe not.
>> It depends what you are comparing I guess!
> 
> That is the only real positive argument I have ever seen for this.

Have you not been reading my replies? False positives, man! I personally
could care less if we fork a call to qmail-queue. I just don't want one
of my business customers losing email without realizing it.


> It is ever-so-slightly more resource efficient. However, as I know that only 2%
> of our e-mail is viruses (owch - I just looked that up - that's a lot
> higher than I thought!), the "extra resource" required really is tiny. I
> realise that's very site-dependent... The reality is all of our queues are
> stuffed full of bounced SPAM - not virus alerts...
> 
>> Loosen up man...
> 
> Gotta be kidding. I'm runnin' on coffee this week...


-- 
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v)  423-559-5145 (f)
http://www.wingnet.net




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general

Reply via email to