> From: Mark Mentovai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> I use "should" in the same manner that it is used in the documents which
> define the very standards and practices over which we are
> arguing. In order
> to be a good 'net neighbor, an MTA (note that I am not singling
> any MTA out
> here) should not open 25 SMTP connections to the same host to transfer the
> same message specifying a different destination address each time when it
> can just as easily open a single connection and specify 25 destination
> addresses.
I have to agree with Mark on this. I also saw this behaviour of qmail's as
not too serious, especially given djb's arguments about email traffic vs web
traffic (sorry no url), but we did have what might be called a pathalogical
case - a user mailing the a 1 MB file to 10 people at his office, every day.
>From the company admin pov it looked we were trying to DoS him (they are
running a NAI based virus checker on the incoming mailer). We had to get the
user to send mail via our secondary mailer (an NT system running Mailsite).
>
[snip]
>
> Am I really the only one that feels this way? Does nobody else agree with
> me or recognize my concerns? Are my suggestions really so far out there
> that everyone is willing to write me off as a radical? I didn't think so,
> but it may be the case. If I'm the only person reading who is
> interested in
> discussing improvements, then I might as well thank you all for
> listening to
> me as long as you have and give up.
I share your views. It really is the only area of concern for me wrt qmail.
I think that limiting the number of simultaneous smtp connections to a
particular host would eleviate my concerns.
Regards
Abdul
>
> Mark
>
