On Thu Dec 13 19:41:57 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Thu Dec 13 16:51:35 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 4. would return an error to the sender (e.g.,
<recipient-unavailable/>)
>>
>>
> But won't this mean, effectively, that messages and/or data are
lost? In
> this case, I'm assuming Donald is legitmate - if Donald is
deliberately
> throttling his c2s link, in order to create a DoS, then we don't
care,
> of course.
> > What we want to do here - I think - is throttle the sender, and
only
> start to reject stanzas if the throttling is ignored. (Perhaps
because
> it's unsupported).
If Donald has so little bandwidth available, why is he engaging in
large
data transfers?
Because of any of:
1) Donald has plenty of bandwidth, but is currently using it for some
other task.
2) Donald is using a low bandwidth connection, and really needs that
file.
3) Donald is actively colluding with Calin (or whoever the other guy
was called) to form a DoS attack on the server.
4) Donald is a duck, and therefore cannot be expected to make
rational decisions based on bandwidth capacity.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
