On 4 Mar 2004 at 18:33, Alan J. Flavell wrote about
"Re: [Exim] Re: Bagle, unqualified H":
| On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Fred Viles wrote:
|
| > | - and so on. One or more of these strategies will delay the receiving
| > | MTA for perhaps a minute or so. If it can't cope with that, you have
| > | your DDoS already.
| >
| > So your point is that as long as any DDoS vulnerability exists, it
| > doesn't matter how many of them there are?
|
| Let's not get carried away with that kind of rhetoric, please.
Sorry, just trying to understand your point.
|...
| As I see it, there's only a modest factor between our bargaining
| positions.
I don't think we actually disagree about anything. As I said, I
think you misinterpreted my post as arguing against your approach.
In fact I like it and implemented something similar myself.
|...
| Then maybe you want to talk about the benefits of decoupling the
| timeout settings for different phases of the protocol?
That's what I thought I was already talking about. That was the
point of my question about smtp_receive_timeout.
|...
- Fred
