On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > I did a 10-second scan of 5321 and didn't find the relevant text, but I'd like > to resolve -- and preferably squash -- this issue quickly.
Just came into the office and saw nearly 20 emails on this. Great conversation, but not "quickly" :) At 19:27 09-08-10, [email protected] wrote: > I have a somewhat different take on this. First of all, I have always > thought the admonition that you MUST minimize the amount of time spent > before responding to the trailing dot to the greatest extent possible > was, well, bunk. > (It's also an effectively unenforceable MUST - who can say you've done > all you can or not? - which is bad in its own right.) While it is > important not to spend too much time, the difference between a > millisecond delay and a 2 second delay is, in this situation, not worth worrying about. Completely agree for several reasons, including that the only senders that take advantage of "as fast as you can process" scenarios are spammers. If I take a second or two to accept a message from a legit sender they neither know nor care. But to a spammer, the faster we receive and delivery the more mail gets through before a content filter or blocklist can update. We saw this happen when we migrated to our current system 3 years ago. Spam was delivered at many hundreds of times faster than mail from AOL, Hotmail and Gmail combined. Responding as quickly as my system will allow with <CRLF>.<CRLF> helps no one I want to help.
