From: Artem Bokhan (artistacadem.org)
Date: Fri Sep 07 2007 - 00:18:58 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I still would prefer to use data timeouts different from smtpd_timeout.
Stop so stop. No more posting.
> At 09:43 AM 9/6/2007, Bokhan Artem wrote:
>> So may be smtpd_after_*_timeout or smtpd_envelope_timeout? It would
>> save some smtpd processes while fighting with bots.
>
> please stop top posting.
>
> There is no evidence that replacing the existing single
> "smtpd_timeout" parameter with multiple sub-parameters would be worth
> the effort.
>
> There is considerable evidence that significantly reducing
> smtpd_timeout from the default of 300s to 60s or 40s helps fight bots
> and is safe for most environments. There is also evidence that during
> extreme bot attacks, reducing smtpd_timeout to 10s or even 5s gets rid
> of the bots quicker while still allowing (most) legit mail to arrive.
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]