ive.org> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joe Maimon wrote: > > > 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. > > I would also like to see some way to limit users (per user) to a number of pop3 checks per minute, but without generating support calls because of an error message. It would be better to simply return "no new messages on server" for x minutes if possible (still with no i/o). I'm not at all sure how difficult that change would be to implement. Short of that, I'd definitely like to see the HappyMail patch put into the main codebase. Ken Anderson Pacific.Net
