Re: [Exim] Re: Bagle, unqualified HELO, time delays

Top Pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Auteur: Fred Viles
Datum:  
Aan: exim-users
Onderwerp: Re: [Exim] Re: Bagle, unqualified HELO, time delays
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