4 ms·
Since these are so trivial to halt and blow away everything in the queue from the thread I can only imagine the sysadmins in charge of these mail systems are le
by brazzledazzle 10y ago
Since these are so trivial to halt and blow away everything in the queue from the thread I can only imagine the sysadmins in charge of these mail systems are letting it continue for comedic effect. That or they have to jump through weeks of change control hoops so letting it play out is faster.
- branchless 10y agoNo I assume that given the input rate and perhaps due to distributed, non-responsive servers or perhaps sheer incompetence they couldn't halt it.
- brazzledazzle 10y agoIt's probably Exchange so nuking the offending messages in the mail queues on the transports during a mail storm is par for the course. Even if they're distributed. The messages already hitting the mailbox hosts would definitely be causing a bad time though.
- pja 10y agoBanks have legal constraints on doing that (the need to record all employee communications) which might have made life difficult in this particular case. I agree in general that the mail sysadmins ideally ought to be able to nip this kind of thing in the bud.
- brazzledazzle 10y agoAh, yes–it's a bank. That's a great point. Not sure what I was thinking. I imagine you could set up a separate transport with special rules that dumps them somewhere outside of the normal mail infrastructure for that message thread but it wouldn't be worth it when the problem happens infrequently and just adding sender restrictions to the list is quick and effective.