From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
nope. what I'm implying is that the inability to verify a return
address via SMTP within 35 seconds is a poor criterion for failing to
deliver a message. yes, the _majority_ (> 50%) of verifications will
complete in this time, but we need email to work a lot more often than
50% of the time.
Fair statement, but I contest the >50% simply because that will imply at
least 49% of all CBV sessions would fail due to a 35 timeout which is
clearly not the case.
really, one failure in ten thousand legitimate
messages is too high...we should be able to achieve one failure in a
hundred thousand messages or better.
Is this a standard criteria for acceptance? If so, our statistics meet
Nonetheless, I prefer to seek 0% failure rate at the SMTP level that is
completely independent on the mail content interpretations.
The context of the statement is based on the OP assertion that low
(35 seconds in this case) "will not work in the real world of internet
email" which implies the majority of all systems.
it doesn't imply any such thing - that's just your interpretation. for
most of us on this list, a system that only works a "majority" of the
time isn't nearly reliable enough.
If my interpretation is incorrect, then your interpretation and the people
you are speaking for suggest that it must work 95%, 98%, 99% or 100% of the
You just stated above that a 1 in 100,000 failure rate is an acceptable
failure rate. That isn't 100%.
Which is it? What is "reliable" for keith?
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.