Re: s/qmail vs qmail with John Simpson's combined patch

Hi Niamh,

> Am 10.02.2019 um 09:47 schrieb Niamh Holding <[email protected]>:
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>=20
>=20
> Hello Andy,
>=20
> Saturday, February 9, 2019, 4:04:02 PM, you wrote:
>=20
> AB> Speaking of greetdelay, from my statistics  it still seems like a =
fairly
> AB> effective method as 17.9% of all connections in my environment hit =
it. I
> AB> use two delays,  a 10 second and  a 30 second, however, I'm  not =
able to
> AB> easily distinguish which is more effective without additional =
work.
>=20
> AB> Of those  that hit a  greet delay problem, 8.3%  disconnect =
prematurely,
> AB> and  91.6% are  dropped because  they sent  data before  the =
banner  was
> AB> presented.
>=20
> Are you implementing that with s/qmail?

Greetdelay comes with my rblsmtpd implementation as part of ucspi-tcp6.=20=


It can bei used with any version of qmail.=20


https://www.fehcom.de/ipnet/ucspi-tcp6.html

Best reagards.
--eh.

>=20
> - --
> Best regards,
> Niamh                            mailto:[email protected]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>=20
> iEYEARECAAYFAlxf5TwACgkQjFUB2JvnEPn0oACg+eA9LLGomvMDY7WulkYKHL21
> UU0AoOKOrNpMGXbE9uhGxlVQFeNI/FzI
> =3Du1Q5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>=20
>=20

Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | FEHCom | http://www.fehcom.de | PGP Key-Id 7E4034BE