spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] A Wild Idea (was: Questions on unified policy)

2005-09-09 09:11:32
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:57:02PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

FWIW, our base email bandwidth is 56K bits/sec - this is how much we 
consume
rejecting 30000+ bogus connections per day in SMTP envelope, with
no actual legitimate mail getting transferred.  If I limit the connection
rate, then the latency for legitimate mail goes up by 5 or 10 minutes (I
know, big deal, but customers complain).

    WILD IDEA

I had this kooky idea.  Suppose I designate port 25 as the "bulk rate"
email port, and limit the connection rate.  Then I designate another
port, say 587, as the "first class" email port.

You've just described justification for migrating to SMTP TLS as I 
heard it couple years back. Its all available in most new versions
of SMTP software and BTW port number for it has been assigned and
is not 587 but 465. No, it has not caught up in great numbers yet...

The only thing somewhat new in your "WILD IDEA" is using throttling
on port 25 at the same time as promoting SMTP TLS use. Also not
anything new but unfortunately throttling has big disadvantage of
rejecting legitimate emails unconditionally ...

hmmm ... bandwidth saving measures ...

Stuart, do you already have greetpause ?

Regards,
Paddy
-- 
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>