MBOX-Line: From tjs at psaux.com  Mon Apr  1 09:00:37 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Tim Showalter <tjs@psaux.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Working around the evils of LITERAL+
In-Reply-To: <465A2A40-E7B0-421E-9140-D2672F0F682D@iki.fi>
References: <CABa8R6s3rK5JkXBtV7RWbav9T2GBCg+pw-aWd9=5Szv3ocDS_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<465A2A40-E7B0-421E-9140-D2672F0F682D@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <5159AF25.9060707@psaux.com>

On 3/30/13 2:01 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 26.3.2013, at 23.26, Brandon Long <blong@google.com> wrote:
>
>> So, if a user attempted to draft a message larger than our limit (35MB), with LITERAL+, the client would just issue an APPEND with two large a message.  Our options were to just eat the data and say NO afterwards (great waste of bandwidth) or drop the connection.  Some clients would just keep retrying to do the APPEND until they exhausted the upload bandwidth quota, or just cost the user a lot of money if they happened to be on a line that charged.
>
> Did you consider blocking the client's IP for n minutes and sending the user an email explaining the issue and asking to reset the client?

If the client is a mobile phone, they are coming from some NAT address 
and you stand a good chance of blocking a large number of users.

Tim


