I agree completely.  Running an ISP can teach you that people care
significantly less about even their web sites than they do their e-mail.
How many times have you heard the 'I lost a piece of a e-mail and I could
have potentially lost $10,000 because of your ISP!' I'm sorry, but Mail is
the highest priority, without a doubt.  Customers take it extremely
personally if any e-mail is lost.  That's how I weigh e-mail in the scheme
of things.  Which service is more likely to tick users off if it dies?
E-mail.  Which service will generate the most calls if it is even remotely
slow? E-mail.  You really can't argue with that.  Even in corporate lans,
people will be much more of a pain if their e-mail stops working as opposed
to let's say web access.

Regards,

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!


> > oh, I get it..  I agree that they're probably worrying too
> > much, but how should qmail prevent this?  does sendmail
> > handle it differently?
>
> If N recipients at a site are getting the same exact message, you
> enter multiple RCPT TO lines and one DATA entry.  If N recipients at a
site
> are getting N different messages, you use RSET to reuse the existing SMTP
> connection (something I've never fully trusted the PC-mail-store vendors
to
> get right, quite frankly).  Sendmail defaults to doing the former, but not
> the latter, if I recall (and I don't, 'cause I haven't screwed with
sendmail
> for years, so don't get on my case if I'm wrong.)
>
> Qmail gets better performance by opening multiple connections in
> parallel.  ORBS thinks that this is too greedy of an algorithm.
Presumably
> they'd rather save the bandwidth for more useful business traffic like
> Napster or Quake.  I find it hard to see how someone working at an
> organization dedicated to protecting the mail infrastructure can say
> something like "treating smtp as low priority data."
>
> --
> gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Reply via email to