On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 12:52 -0400, max bianco wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
<pocallaghan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 20:16 +1030, Tim wrote:
> Anyone who argues that email shouldn't be a reliable
mechanism is
> skirting the issue. It should be. There's no excuse it not
to be.
AFAIK no-one is arguing that it *shouldn't* be (in the sense
that in
some ideal alternate universe we wouldn't want it to be), but
that it
*isn't*.
And to say "there's no excuse for it not to be" is either a
misstatement
of what you mean or evidence of a jaw-dropping
misunderstanding of how
the Internet works. As I can't believe you really mean the
latter, I
guess it must be the former. Or maybe we have different
conceptions of
what "reliable" means.
As I pointed out in an earlier message, there are situations
in which
not using greylisting leads to a measurably less reliable mail
service.
Not all situations, maybe not your situation, but I know they
exist
because I've seen them.
I thought email was supposed to be a best effort delivery service. We
may take that it always or usually always works for granted
but .......
My point exactly.
poc