From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/40008 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: thoughts on spam Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 22:49:23 -0500 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87y9m9fs6b.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> <20011102160930.CC3D1BD52@squeaker.lickey.com> <87wv192jzh.fsf_-_@mclinux.com> <861yjgbygz.fsf@duchess.twilley.org> <20011102235444.E9C73BD48@squeaker.lickey.com> <87n122s9k8.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035175626 30980 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:47:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 29836 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 03:48:23 -0000 Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu (mail@129.7.128.13) by mastaler.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 03:48:23 -0000 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 160aiH-0007St-00; Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:46:17 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:45:57 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09921 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:45:44 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 29811 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2001 03:45:55 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 29806 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 03:45:55 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (qmail-remote@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 03:45:55 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 5394 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2001 03:49:45 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: "\(ding\)" In-Reply-To: (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "04 Nov 2001 15:46:54 -0500") Mail-Copies-To: never Original-Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:40008 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:40008 Stainless Steel Rat wrote: > * "Matt Armstrong" on Sun, 04 Nov 2001 >| Stainless Steel Rat wrote: >|> I have seen Postfix's parallelization totally cripple my network >|> at work. As far as we could figure, Postfix did not ratchet down >|> fast enough and the end result was a crashed firewall MTA and an >|> unknown quantity of lost mail. We reset everything and Postfix >|> did it again. I have little doubt that qmail would achieve the >|> same results, only faster. qmail doesn't lose mail. (Nor does it "ratchet down"; you give it a limit, and it stays within that limit.) >| FUD -- you can configure postfix such that there is zero possibility >| that it'll flood your network. > > Your -assertion- does not make it so. Nor does your assertion make it not so. > The fact that it -has- happened is sufficient reason to be wary of it, > because there is a non-zero possibility of it happening again, no matter > what you say. IOW, as long as it's possible to configure it to hose your network, you're not interested in whether it can be configured not to do so? This is very, very OT. Can those interested in it take it off-list, please? paul