Hello folks,
I am not a huge proponent of keeping connections open. System resources
wise, that is asking for trouble.
But I am even far less a fan of limiting the frequency with which users
check their mail. It sounds great, at first glance, but is a System
Administrator's nightmare in the making. Steve, if you are worried about
customers calling in, wait until you start refusing connections as a
"throttle" measure. And they would actually be right, too; from the client
end, your server would simply appear broken -- that is, unless they check
for return codes, which you know they will not do. Their client software
may, or may not, show a legible reason for why mail cannot be retrieved, but
that is not for qpopper to assume that it will -- nor even for us to assume
that the user will then know how to interpret it. I would even go as far as
to say that the user will likely NOT no what to do, and will wind up writing
me, ten times a day, telling me the server is broken, and would I please fix
it.
As has been pointed out, UID's are cached. What one COULD do, for a client
who connects too soon after his last check, is to simply reply that he has
no new mail. You see, that is something that I could support (not that I
have a say in it, really, but just the thought.) From the server end,
qpopper would simply forego checking the mail for real, but in its
functionality towards the connecting client be fully transparent. To the
client it would just appear as not having new mail yet; no disconnect, no
firewall-like stumbling blocks; just qpopper reporting he has no new mail
yet. And the implementation thereof would be real simple too. Just one
per-UID ticker, which you reset at each connection; and you only really
check for mail when it has been, say, 5 mins after his latest check.
So, what I am proposing is a graceful early-out, instead of just an out.
Just my $.02,
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Perrault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Subscribers of Qpopper"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
> A problem you might see in changing the error message is that Outlook
> doesn't display them. They display their own internally generated
> messages. Although there may be a workaround like the error 404 ->
> "unable to display page" in IE, instead of the real error page. (I
> think i saw altavista do it, it was quite amusing, because if you read
> the source of the page, it has this big rant about IE :)
>
> All your outlook users would probably see is something cryptic ("POP3
> can't check your email because of error 0x2498AFE3, somethings hosed").
> Letting the processes not close properly could lead to inetd reaching
> is max process limits, or your system being taxed for memory.
>
> Kelly
>
> At 4:58 PM -0400 4/17/02, Steve Perrault wrote:
>
> > I'm dealing with the next order of magnitude of users, many checking
> > every minute. We're logging 150-200 pop sessions/minute. However,
> > this frequent checking (especially with LMOS) is more of an annoyance
> > to ME than affecting anyone.
> >
> > I've considered modifying the qpopper source to keep the connection
> > open for x minutes after the customer closes the session. I'd also
> > change the pop lock error message to explain it (instead of the POP
> > lock busy). However, any changes to customers will just get them
> > calling in, regardless of how well I explain things in the error
> > message. My poor tech support reps will be tied up:
> >
> > 1) explaining why they can't check mail "like the always have" 2)
> > justifying our policy to the people who understand it 3) spend x
> > minutes waiting for pop sessions to time out after the customer
> > attempts to check mail
> >
> > - SteveP
> >
> > At 03:24 PM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I was just wondering if anyone knew of a commonly used program used
> >> in conjunction with Qpopper, or perhaps even a widely used patch,
> >> that would enable me to limit the frequency with which users check
> >> their mail. Currently there is no such limit, and believe it or not
> >> many have their Eudora setup to autocheck every minute. This is
> >> unacceptable with almost 2000 users per machine. Especially
> >> considering that they regularly keep messages on server as well for
> >> a period of at least 5 days. I know that I've seen other
> >> institutions implement such restrictions, and you are sent an error
> >> message via standard POP protocol it appears, which Eudora displays
> >> in the status telling you you are checking mail too often. THis is
> >> more than sufficient. Any help or recommendations would be GREATLY
> >> appreciated. Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> PS - The client getting the descriptive error message is by FAR the
> >> most important thing, as to avoid unnecessary calls to our helpdesk
> >> people.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Tim Meader ACS Government Services, Inc. - (301) 286-8013
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
>
> Kelly Kane Claremont Unified School District
