> > > On 3 Feb 2020, at 14:04, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > >> One of the main reasons I don't think we should use such long retries >> is >> that it violates user expectations. Users often treat email as nearly >> instantaneous, because it normally is... so taking hours or days of >> actually failing without any quick indication to the user violates >> that >> expectation. > > This. Expectations have changes *a lot* over the years. > > For some pairs of correspondents, it's ok to wait a couple days for an > email. For others, a message delayed more than a few hours is pointless. > > For bulk outbound email, we tend to see a queue that doesn't drain fast > enough as a sign of trouble. >
I've always made a point of educating people that email is not an SLA'd service and the odd delay will happen. If people need a fast response they need an interactive engagement - a phonecall. SMS services are the same. As usual as text-message notifications are, they can and do get delayed in the network sometime. Reasons that emergency services are usually turned out by methods more timely and reliable. I agree that quietly queueing for a reasonable amount of time is a great way to manage outages, so i'm not keen to see a trend toward reducing queue times much lower than they are already. The guy frantically rebuilding the mail-server and reconfiguring it on the fly because backup recovery isn't viable, values knowing that he can liven up the machine and receive his queue 36 hours later. Mark. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
