On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:24:41PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Curtis: > > Yeah, I figured it would be a pretty significant slow down for hosts > > that support it... I just wasn't sure what percentage of hosts support > > pipelining. If only 10% of hosts were using it in the first place, the > > 40% extra delivery time lost on those hosts might be managable... but, > > if you're saying that the majority of hosts do have pipelining enabled > > (it makes sense that they would), then a 40% slow down would probably be > > too expensive. > > I have no statistics for ESMTP PIPELINING deployment. Many major > MTA implementation support this, but unfortunately some "security" > "firewall" implementors still make basic mistakes, and that is > probably what we are looking at. > > Wietse > Hi Wietse,
I really like your idea about a time-based fallback to a no-pipelining send similar to the Cisco PIX work-around. Regards, Ken
