Re: Large spool mboxes => slow?

At 5:16 PM +0000 3/9/06, Hugh Sasse wrote:

>   > In addition to architectural considerations, you might want to try the
>>  HAPPYMAIL patch I developed to address the problem of changing user
>   > behavior.

The patch looks useful.

The web page says it uses the [AUTH] response code.  A quick glance 
at the patch shows it using either a [HAPPYMAIL] response code or no 
response code.

Were these choices deliberate?

RFC 2449 and 3206 specify that [AUTH] indicates a problem 
specifically with the user's credentials, and thus the client should 
prompt for a new password.

The [LOGIN-DELAY] response code is specified to inform the client 
that the login interval is too short.  So, I'd suggest that the patch 
include the [LOGIN-DELAY] response code in its error message instead 
of [HAPPYMAIL] (which is non-standard) or no response code.

Also, I think it would be very friendly (and way cool) for the patch 
to include the LOGIN-DELAY response to the CAPA command.  In 
authenticated state it can include the specific login-delay that will 
be enforced for the user.

You can also set the LOGIN-DELAY response to CAPA using the 
announce-login-delay option.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Coding is "90% finished" for half of the total coding time. Debugging
is "99% complete" most of the time.                     --Fred Brooks