Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: timeoutsmtpd downsides

To: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: timeoutsmtpd downsides
From: Charles Cazabon <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:32:42 -0600
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
In-reply-to: <20070404185032.GA22829@c-76-18-79-168.hsd1.nm.comcast.net>
Mail-followup-to: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
References: <20070404185032.GA22829@c-76-18-79-168.hsd1.nm.comcast.net>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Kyle Wheeler <kyle-qmail@memoryhole.net> wrote:
> 
> 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...

Section 4.5.3.2 of rfc2821 talks a little about this, although mostly from a
client's point of view.  It does recommend at least a 3 minute timeout on each
send during the DATA phase.

Charles
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                               <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org>
Read http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/12-steps-to-qmail-list-bliss.html
My services include qmail consulting.  See http://pyropus.ca/ for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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