On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't believe that legitimate senders of email are likely to commonly see >> really long delays at the end of data, and I don't much care if other >> senders are inconvenienced. > > As a sender, over the years, I've seen duplicate messages to Y! > increase. The MTA we use has RFC suggested limits. We increased those > limits to reduce duplicates. We didn't yell at Y! that they should > follow the RFC better. It was easy to visualize that with the massive > amount of mailboxes they have that things would take longer than they > should from time to time. > > So I find it strange that some folks are seeking to suggest lower > values instead of realizing that those MTA clients are making a > conscience decision to not follow RFC guidelines at the risk of > increased duplicates. I'd say reducing those numbers would be an > endorsement of their bad behaviour. I don't think that is something we > should be doing. > > If clarification is sought, I like John's language. I'd also say keep > the 10 minute time-out. Otherwise I think the existing language is > fine. I'm not sure what you're responding to here. It doesn't appear to be anything implied in the mail of mine you're responding to - neither the quoted sentence nor the rest of it. I'm certainly not suggesting lower timeout values. Cheers, Steve
