atom feed12 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] validating addres...
FromSent OnAttachments
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 20, 2010 2:26 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 20, 2010 4:04 am 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 20, 2010 4:52 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 20, 2010 3:03 pm 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 26, 2010 2:38 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 26, 2010 4:01 am 
Gordon MessmerMay 26, 2010 8:32 pm 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 28, 2010 6:31 am 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 28, 2010 7:18 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 28, 2010 3:08 pm 
Gordon MessmerMay 28, 2010 4:11 pm 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 31, 2010 8:24 am 
Subject:Re: [courier-users] validating addresses at SMTP time.
From:Sam Varshavchik (mrs@courier-mta.com)
Date:May 28, 2010 3:08:27 pm
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:

On 26.05.10 07:01, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

All of this incurs non-trivial per message overhead. Issuing a DNS query, and/or querying the local account database, is not free, and the penalty now applies to every message. A judgement call needs to be made whether the additional overhead is justified by the value added.

I'm aware of all of this. However all (except sender address verification) the overhead will still happen, but later in delivery chain, in which case

A second time. Twice as much overhead, now.

As the old saying goes: build an idiot-proof process, and nature will evolve a better idiot.

Do you mean we shouldn't build idiot-proof processes because of this?

A completely idiot-proof solution is often impossible. Nearly all the time this is reduced to a judgement call, whether the extra bang for the buck is worth the additional penalty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list cour@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users