Re: SMTP traffic control

Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:
> 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.
I personally do not wish to get into the engineering philosophical 
ideology and semantics of what constitutes an optimization and/or 
"problem" and whether an optimization is or is not a solution to a 
problem.
There are many views to this, one can be that the system has degraded 
and that in itself can be viewed or defined a problem.  The solution 
is be viewed as a "Fix", "adjustment" and/or optimization.
Me? Technically, an optimization is something that is done to a system 
that has not changed, and you are improving it.  However, when there 
is an recognized issue that has moved it to a less-quality state, an 
action taken  is not necessarily an optimization.  Nonetheless, it can 
all falls under the same concepts where to me worth to waste time on.
> Further, optimizations are notorious for having unexpected side effects, 
> and I think people have already raised some of those here.
Yet another generalization cliche.

Much of this is about perception and IMV, there is a real issue out 
there, whether you feel it or not.
I just don't wish to see a proactive effort to improve/fix/optimize 
the current environment be thrown own because of limited perception 
that smoke isn't good enough to look at some proposals - that we need 
FIRE before anything is done, and not only fire, but everyone's house 
is burning.
--