At 11:06 AM 5/27/2005, Ken A wrote:
ive.org>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Daniel Senie wrote:
>
>> At 05:18 PM 5/26/2005, Clifton Royston wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 06:26:42AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> > David Champion wrote:
>>> > >* On 2005.05.25, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > >* "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > <snip>
>>> > >
>>> > >Disclaimer: we don't really use this anymore, as we've been hauled
>>> > >kicking and screaming by upper management into carefree turnkey mail
>>> > >appliance blissful all day long land. So I don't know how well this
>>> > >works with current qpoppers -- it was developed on 4.0.5, and I don't
>>> > >really maintain it anymore, since I can't defend that to mgmt and
>>> have
>>> > >enough other projects for my free time. (If anyone who uses it is
>>> > >interested in taking over, please let me know.)
>>> >
>>> > I use it (patched) and I host patches for it.
>>> > Works EXCELLENT for quite some time.
>>>
>>> This is the "Happymail" patch we're talking about here, right?
>>>
>>> If so, it pretty much solved all our mailserver load headaches. The
>>> bigger the mailbox, the less often they are allowed to check it; this
>>> makes the load on the server virtually flat.
>>>
>>> I also enthusiastically endorse it.
>>>
>>
>> Are these features that would make sense to consider integrating into
>> the qpopper code base and configuring with options?
>>
>>
>
> I would vote for rate limiting by user,ip relevant to mailbox size to be
> a standard feature, whether it is by use of this aproach or any other.
>
>
I would also like to see some way to limit users (per user) to a number
of pop3 checks per minute, but without generating support calls because
of an error message. It would be better to simply return "no new
messages on server" for x minutes if possible (still with no i/o). I'm
not at all sure how difficult that change would be to implement.
Yes, this would be my preference too. We get enough support calls from
people who reboot their computer during a download and then can't get back
in while the server waits to time out their TCP session. Don't need more
from this case. Returning a "thanks, no new messages" would be perfect. And
yes, it'd have to happen without actually reading the mailbox. Guess a
"last checked time" database would be needed.
Short of that, I'd definitely like to see the HappyMail patch put into
the main codebase.
Ken Anderson
Pacific.Net
