| 
 
 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
 
 
 |  
  
 | 
 
 
 |