From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5ef4b3faf3e5e706c2220def7e2895f2@yourdomain.dom>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] re: spam filtering fs
From: matt@yourdomain.dom
In-Reply-To: <022401c37218$2d1a8480$b9844051@insultant.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed,  3 Sep 2003 10:09:26 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2b50aea6-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

If it is our network bandwidth that we consider to be valuable then perhaps a strategy of assigning variable bandwidth to remote connections dependent on certain tokens could be an option.

Bandwidth assigned by a weighting from combinations of remote machine / envelope sender / E?HELO field could mean welcome email is accepted quickly whereas unusual mail is given less resources.

If you refused connections from any IP in .ru that didn't have a known envelope sender during peak hours then you could be smoothing your demand.

I am thinking that in such a scheme all mail will be delivered eventually.
I haven't studied the subject but I suppose that monitoring the connections to your mailserver should be revealing with regard to the weighting system. A sudden rush of email from a remote IP can be reacted to progressively throttling the bandwidth available to that IP.

This has little bearing on your mbox management I suppose, except such information can be passed through in extra headers.