Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!mcvax.UUCP!dpk
From: dpk@mcvax.UUCP.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Adaptive SMTP Timeouts
Message-ID: <8605291015.AA16996@sering.uucp>
Date: Thu, 29-May-86 08:52:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sering.8605291015.AA16996
Posted: Thu May 29 08:52:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 29-May-86 23:41:43 EDT
References: <8605282105.AA21234@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 13
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Sounds cute, but is it really necessary.  In all cases there should be
a reasonable MAXIMUM hardcoded in.  I thought the times I put in were
reasonable.  If not we have to ask should be really be talking to
a host whose round trip time is 15 seconds.  My suspicion is that the
answer might be no.  For example, no reply to a HELO after one minute
is ridiculous.  Sounds like a lot of work to get right and not necessarily
foolproof.  If you get a really fast HELO response, ar you going to reduce
the time on RCPT replies too much (if it needs mucho expansion)?  Its very
hard to get right in all cases.  It may be easier to be able to state
difinitively what the values are for all cases.  Consider them specs for
performance.  You need hardcoded minimums and maximums in any case.

-Doug-