Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

timeoutsmtpd downsides

To: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Subject: timeoutsmtpd downsides
From: Kyle Wheeler <kyle-qmail@memoryhole.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:50:32 -0600
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=memoryhole.net; b=JuSew+ruqDkySCZSnz0vNUGXTQZBPpsHY0RS2tC4NVVwpgaL22MfYp2g75Sv5TnaEKF49Vep1Dmh350vrgjZ70u3BKZdA7ZBU3SpdojUIFhpoyvl5VZrj20UzpX0mfBbw5JkPNwp16+cPonQuMnav5HtZPez9ZTFyX6uFgJuqF4= ;
Domainkey-status: good
Mail-followup-to: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-04-03)
Hello,

Because of some recent spammer behavior (looks like reverse-tarpitting), I'm considering reducing my timoutsmtpd value from the default 1200 seconds to 60 or less. I haven't really thoroughly considered the repercussions of such an action, but it seems to me that there's very little reason to wait more than a few seconds for each new piece of data from the client. I don't see any requirement in the SMTP protocol that I must wait for a particularly long amount of time...

Are there drawbacks to lowering my timeout value that I'm not thinking of? Has anyone done this before and have any reports as to possible side-effects?

~Kyle
--
Old boys have their playthings as well as young ones; the difference is only in the price.
                                                  -- Benjamin Franklin

Attachment: pgpAOdbgxTwbE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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