| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:05:14AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> $SUBJECT says it all... what do you think? |
| 3 |
TL;DR: don't engage in this arms race, the only losers are those that |
| 4 |
play by the rules. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
As kentnl, there are valid use cases for lots of emails: |
| 7 |
- patchsets |
| 8 |
- related-issues specifically split to one issue per thread, with |
| 9 |
multiple parallel threads. |
| 10 |
- busy days of mail |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It also raises a concern that mail delivered out of order can cause |
| 13 |
severe confusion on mailing lists. Eg, I write 5 emails on a thread in |
| 14 |
-dev. The first 3 get through immediately, but the latter ones are |
| 15 |
delayed by the greater value of (greylist time && next-mailserver |
| 16 |
attempt). If it happens to attempt messages 4,5, in order, but the |
| 17 |
greylist time expires between #4 & #5, then #5 will be accepted, but #3 |
| 18 |
and #4 will not yet be accepted (until much later on if the counter |
| 19 |
makes you wait even longer). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
To forestall further questions: |
| 22 |
- no, tracking if a mail is on a specific thread and then adding the |
| 23 |
thread as one of the greylisting keys is non-trivial, and can be |
| 24 |
worked around by suitably motivated persons. |
| 25 |
- Suitable motivated persons can also bypass your per-sender |
| 26 |
restrictions by just rotating their senders, and thus putting anybody |
| 27 |
else at a disadvantage if they don't also do the same. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer |
| 32 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 33 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 |
Archives