Daniel Senie wrote:
At 05:18 PM 5/26/2005, Clifton Royston wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 06:26:42AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
> David Champion wrote:
> >* On 2005.05.25, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >* "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >Disclaimer: we don't really use this anymore, as we've been hauled
> >kicking and screaming by upper management into carefree turnkey mail
> >appliance blissful all day long land. So I don't know how well this
> >works with current qpoppers -- it was developed on 4.0.5, and I don't
> >really maintain it anymore, since I can't defend that to mgmt and have
> >enough other projects for my free time. (If anyone who uses it is
> >interested in taking over, please let me know.)
>
> I use it (patched) and I host patches for it.
> Works EXCELLENT for quite some time.
This is the "Happymail" patch we're talking about here, right?
If so, it pretty much solved all our mailserver load headaches. The
bigger the mailbox, the less often they are allowed to check it; this
makes the load on the server virtually flat.
I also enthusiastically endorse it.
Are these features that would make sense to consider integrating into
the qpopper code base and configuring with options?
I would vote for rate limiting by user,ip relevant to mailbox size to be
a standard feature, whether it is by use of this aproach or any other.
