--On Thursday, August 25, 2011 09:49 -0400 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
The answer has got to be a new SMTP extension, or pair of
extensions, to do maximum throughput sending on one
connection and multi-message transaction advisory mechanisms
to support co-operation between bulk software and the MTA
for knowing the delivery load in advance, thus neutralising
the discussion over server administrative policy, port or
connection slot exhaustion, client selfishness, time to wait
until shutdown, event-driven programming vs process-based
servers, OS wars and all the other nonsense. We need an
improved checkpointing facility. That's what we should do, I
think.
+1. Or we can begin with a basic tenet of "do no harm." It
is obvious the issues of a well vetting system perform for a
past era where hubs were more dominant and using ideas of
connection sharing were isolated to well known connections,
conflicts in a modern world where there is less hubbing, more
peer to peer and anonymous connectivity. Just consider how
Facebook has become a new high mail sender where it needs to
improve its client side loads but its distribution is towards
a larger pool of smaller smtp servers. If it was assumed that
every facebook user had a common host account, i.e. gmail.com,
then we back to the centralization and hub-hub concepts where
this stuff was ideal.
FWIW, while I have some fundamental concerns about this as a
strategy (and have a different picture of history than the one
Hector describes above), the bottom line is "write it up".
Let's get a draft in front of us that spells out the details,
analyzes the side effects, and that includes a Security
Considerations section that enumerates and evaluates the
possible attacks and how to deal with this. Then we have have a
real discussion. Without it, all we have is more noise on the
list, people making suggestions that other people agree with (or
not) depending on their perceptions of what is being proposed
(perceptions that may not exactly match the intentions of the
original proposal), and so on.
best,
john