On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com>
On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com>
I don't believe that legitimate senders of email are likely to commonly see
really long delays at the end of data, and I don't much care if other
senders are inconvenienced.
As a sender, over the years, I've seen duplicate messages to Y!
increase. The MTA we use has RFC suggested limits. We increased those
limits to reduce duplicates. We didn't yell at Y! that they should
follow the RFC better. It was easy to visualize that with the massive
amount of mailboxes they have that things would take longer than they
should from time to time.
So I find it strange that some folks are seeking to suggest lower
values instead of realizing that those MTA clients are making a
conscience decision to not follow RFC guidelines at the risk of
increased duplicates. I'd say reducing those numbers would be an
endorsement of their bad behaviour. I don't think that is something we
should be doing.
If clarification is sought, I like John's language. I'd also say keep
the 10 minute time-out. Otherwise I think the existing language is
I'm not sure what you're responding to here. It doesn't appear to
be anything implied in the mail of mine you're responding to -
neither the quoted sentence nor the rest of it.
I'm certainly not suggesting lower timeout values.
Oh, sorry about that. I wasn't implying you suggested that. I'm
basically in agreement with what you said, except that I have seen
longer delays. However I don't view those delays as an inconvenience,
just a fact of life in the fight against spam.