Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Russell Nelson wrote:
> >
> > > A host that persistently refuses to run the SMTP protocol on the SMTP
> > > port cannot be said to be running SMTP.
> >
> > So why not fall back to another one that does?
>
> Because you claimed that it was speaking SMTP. Upon examination, it
> isn't. Your MX records are false. Why should I send your server any
> mail at all, since it may not be the right server at all?
If it isn't speaking SMTP right then, it's BROKEN right then. But that's
no different than if it isn't accepting connections right then, which is
also a case of it's BROKEN right then.
Either way it's BROKEN right then.
Now you can just requeue the mail and try again later. If you do, then
you are presuming that perhaps it will be fixed later on, but before the
expiration of the mail.
So why not send the mail on to at least the WORKING secondary MX? That
at least gets it out of your queue, putting the storage burden on whoever
is supposedly doing queueing service for the crappy server.
> > > Tell them to fix their SMTP servers, don't work around their
> > > breakage.
> >
> > Isn't the design philosophy of the Internet supposed to be one where it is
> > desireable to work around breakage?
>
> Nope, because if you do that, people never notice the breakage. If
> something is working (even if it takes special efforts to keep it
> working, e.g. contacting the wrong host first), they quite reasonably
> conclude that it isn't broken, and they don't fix it.
How is it that people won't notice the breakage if the primary mail server
isn't accepting mail? If the server accepts connections, and then keeps
closing them, it's not going to get its mail even from then secondary MX.
I think they will eventually notice they are not getting their mail if it
disconnects just the same as if it was refusing connections.
Doesn't this really come down to a difference between the WAY a mail server
is broken? But I'm not seeing any argument about why the WAY it is broken
is more important than merely the fact that it is broken.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
