On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:10:41PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> postfix-users@postfix.org wrote in
> <zpb-edlgah-vs...@chardros.imrryr.org>:
> |On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 01:54:38AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> ...
> |No, there is no scenario in which no limit is better than an explicit
> |maximum.
> |
> |>|> Letting aside the "extended MAIL" client command that i never have
> |>|> seen, what i would hope for would be that postfix simply says
> |>|>
> |>|> 250-SIZE
> |>|
> |>|There's little to gain by doing that. Instead, just advertise the
> |>|absolute ceiling.
> |>
> |> The problem is that the ceiling is too low.
> |
> |You're not paying attention, the limit to advertise is the *largest*
> |message size (not the typical) that you might accept from any source,
> |to any recipient. Your policy service can then enforce lower limits
> |for the majority of deliveries.
>
> Now you are joking, are you.
So, you really weren't paying attention. :-( I am quite serious.
The words "limit" and "ceiling" are to be read at their actual meaning
of absolute maxima. Your proposal of "250-SIZE<CRLF>" is essentially an
advertised infinite limit, but there's no good reason to do that.
Whatever the actual absolute maximum is, advertise that, and enforce the
target limit for any messages from "typical" senders, who don't get the
absolute limit. If this does not mesh with your intuition, chalk it up
to your intution leading you astray, happens to all of us now and
then...
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
