Re: SMTP traffic control
2011-10-24 17:54:10
Hector wrote:
Personally I think this is a solution looking for a problem.
The cliche is nice, but there is a recognized problem and a
reproducible proof of concept solution possible to help minimize the
impact.
Hector, I've seen nothing in the past two of weeks of discussion that
identify a "problem." What you've identified is, at best, a narrow
potential optimization. A potential optimization is not a problem.
Further, optimizations are notorious for having unexpected side effects,
and I think people have already raised some of those here.
<csg>
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: SMTP traffic control, (continued)
- RE: SMTP traffic control, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- RE: SMTP traffic control, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Keith Moore
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Hector
- Re: SMTP traffic control,
Carl S. Gutekunst <=
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Hector
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Keith Moore
- RE: SMTP traffic control, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Paul Smith
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Peter J. Holzer
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Rosenwald, Jordan
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Steve Atkins
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Claus Assmann
- Re: SMTP traffic control, Steve Atkins
|
|
|