On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:23 PM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2/3/20 5:04 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> >
> > I always wanted to lower it, the messages that take longer than a day
> > are in the noise, and a lot of time that's because a mailbox is so busy
> > that it's on the edge of being able to actually handle the volume, and
> > the problem is more one of flow control (twice in two threads, wow)
>
> It's easy to lie (inadvertently) with statistics. If you draw the window
> big enough, you can ignore any potential problem as statistical noise.
> Basically 100% of the time, messages do go through instantaneously. But
> when your office floods and you have to call someone in to replace,
> reinstall, and restore the whole thing from backup, now 100% of your
> messages are delayed.
>
> You have problems with 100% of messages 0.0001% of the time -- it's not
> a steady 99.9999 success rate, even though that's what the numbers look
> like if your window is five-years long.
>
> Customers really love hearing that they're not going to lose any mail
> when that happens. The rest of the time, yeah, it's a bit long. But
> we're not trying to accomodate the one guy who's over quota on a random
> Tuesday.
>

Sure, but it's still a question of expectations.  I mean, if you lost your
webserver, your
customers won't see your website for days, there's no real "show me the
webpage when
the server becomes available again" (I mean, on mobile Chrome, it has some
level of that
if your data connection isn't working, but that's not "days").

Anyways, managing those expectations in both directions is why we never
made a change
there, and looked at alternative solutions.  When you have enough
customers, people have
every expectation available.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to