I think adding a "rejected because you checked too soon" feature
would make administration much harder.
If we do add it, I'm sure I'll be saying...
1 - what's your user name and password
2 - tell me exactly what you typed into your pop client software
3 - when did you check your email last. ugh ugh
Ken Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> dear edward,
> i understand what u mean. however, pls note that its not always about
> taking action and blocking access. at times, its better to restrict users
> from doing something that we wud rather avoid. mine is such a case where
> the users are employees and i cant simply block one of them coz he checks
> emails frequently.
>
> in any case, the purpose and the justification of the same aside, i m
> interested in a technical input on my requirement. i m sure its going to be
> a hard thing to express how and why i need to limit the frequency.
>
> any technical suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
>
> regards
>
> pati
> Edward Chaves writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:57:19AM -0600, James Beam wrote:
> > >
> > > Think of it this way - you have a sever with 1000 users, if every one of
> > > them was POPing in every 1 minute or so, imagine the strain on your POP3
> > > daemon (not to mention wasted bandwidth - it may only be 1 or 2kb, but that
> > > adds up for those of us who co-locate our servers).
> > >
> >
> > do you allow thousands of connections to the pop3d? what about tcpserver's
> > -c option? that's your throttle.
> >
> > if someone is needlessly filling up pop3 connections, and blocking other
> > users, isn't that more a terms of service issue? in some cases, that's
> > network abuse, and grounds for termination.
> >
> > you can always block the offender with a tcpserver rule, right?
> >
> > --
> > Edward
