Re: Server Enforcement of Time Blocks (wait=)

On 2011-10-29 04:14:45 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > On 2011-10-28 23:33:09 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> > > But I am sure there would be a concern with a no enforcement model in 
> > >  the open market since the tendency will be "why bother?" Even within 
> > > the Honor System, good intention clients who feel they must get a 
> > > message delivered, or simply has no incentive to bother with code 
> > > changes, will cross their fingers and just retry again. After all, 
> > > the new please "wait=" idea is for the *other guy" and not them.
> > For good guys the reason to bother is that they will usually get the
> > mail through *faster*, because the wait time announced by the server is
> > *less* than their usual retry time.
> I agree if there would be a cost awareness factor associated with known 
> policed controls. I don't see that when there isn't any server  
> enforcement. Remember, in this alternative model where there is no  
> regulation controls on the "wait=" time.  Its an honor system control.  
There is no need to "police" or "enforce" the delay. The server is
currently not ready to accept the mail (because of greylisting, high
load, planned downtime, or whatever) and provides a best guess when it
will be ready. If we assume that the guess is accurate (in case of
greylisting it probably is very accurate, in case of high load not so
much), then a client which retries early will find that the server is
still not ready and has to retry again. 

Also consider that at least initially almost all clients will ignore the
hint simply because they don't understand it. "Punishing" them for
malicious behaviour is counter-productive.

        hp


-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Web 2.0 könnte man also auch übersetzen als
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | "Netz der kleinen Geister".
| |   | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at         | 
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |  -- Oliver Cromm in desd

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature