Paul Theodoropoulos writes: > At 03:09 PM 10/29/2003, Paul L. Allen wrote:
> ADSL is not a reliable backbone medium. But they're not backbones. They're end users who want something faster than dial-up or ISDN. I work from home and I'm out in the sticks and I can't even get ADSL (don't even ask about satellite because the cost here is something you wouldn't believe). > Secondly, ADSL service guarantees are generally along the lines of 'if > it goes down, we'll get someone out to check it within 24 hours, and > we'll see if we can fix it'. Yep. But the problem here is not that they could be without mail for 24 hours but that for 24 hours somebody could end up sucking their mail down. Not just a breach of confidentiality but also the mail is permanently lost to them. Unlikely to happen, but not impossible. > A T1 (would that be an E1 over there?) Just as ADSL is unavailable in much of the UK, E1s are unavailable in many populous parts of the UK. And you don't want to know about the price. Really you don't. > If you are doing _serious_ email, you don't use an unreliable backbone > medium. The definition of _serious_ should be obvious. There are people > who rely upon their email for their livelyhood. These days, many companies rely upon e-mail for their livelihood but cannot afford what it takes to get static IP. There is an ISP in the UK supplying dial-up services which, as soon as you dial in, pumps your mail at you (if you have an SMTP server running). In fact, this was the first mass-marked ISP in the UK. And this is *exactly* what these people want as regards mail. Should I tell them they should move away from us and their ADSL to a much slower BONDed ISDN just so they can get their mail reliably or should I try to find an answer? Hint: the money they pay us pays part of my wages. > >ADSL is *expensive* here. ADSL with static IP is *freaking expensive*. > >What do you suggest as an alternative? Hint: "It can't be done so > >just stop getting e-mail" is not an answer our customers are going to > >accept. > > no, you tell them "we cannot promise reliable delivery of email if you > host it on an unreliable backbone line. we would recommend that you host > your email elsewhere". Which is what we may have to tell them. And they may well then switch to somebody who will LIE to them or who CAN provide reliable delivery using something other than qmail. The SMTP RFCs went to great pains to ensure that delivery is (well, should be) reliable. You shouldn't get an OK back from the server until it is certain that the message has been flushed to disk. But they were written in a time when ADSL with dynamic IP was relatively rare. The *spirit* of those RFCs is that mail should get where it is intended to go. Qmail + dynamic DNS, which is becoming increasingly common here, means the spirit of those RFCs is violated. Please adjust to reality. I have to deal with the real world, not an idealized one where all our customers have more money than sense and live in a location where they can get an E1 or accept our recommendations when they cannot get an E1. If I had users who were as smart as those described in the BOFH stories I would be in heaven. > picking at a metaphor usually leaves a nasty scab. so i'll leave it > there... Especially as we don't call them semis here and I had to guess. > >We run a qmail mirror and traffic is declining. > > that could be due to any number of factors, It could. But the number of qmail mirrors is not increasing fast enough to compensate. > comparisons are not a measure of whether the usage of an MTA is growing > or declining. True. But going by my increasingly pointy-haired boss, who evaluates technology first on how strongly it is recommended, and secondly on aesthetics, I consider this to be cause rather than effect. Many bosses look at the recommendations first and do not have the technical ability to evaluate ther technical merits (my PHB is a techy, but rarely uses his technical skills to over-ride his "our customers will love this pile of manure" judgements). > > I know a couple > >of ways of identifying qmail even when the greetings message has been > >changed and patches have removed other obvious identifications and by > >my reckoning Hotmail no longer uses qmail (but probably still doesn't > >use Exchange). > > so you have no proof, correct? Ummm, can you offer me proof that hotmail IS using qmail still? Every test I have done indicates it is not, although the qmail mirrors say it is. > you've expressed an opinion that you believe qmail is not growing in > usage. that's fine, and is your privilege. it is not a fact, however. And do you have ANY proof that *relative* qmail usage is on the increase? It is quite probable that qmail usage is increasing, but not as fast as other MTAs. You have attempted (and failoed) to invalidate the evidence I have avaliabe to me but not provided any of your own to back up your position. I can be convinced - give me verifiable evidence and logical reasoning and I will happily admit I was wrong. > that's fine. one can always attempt to disabuse the customer of their > misunderstanding of the situation. We claim their setup is unreliable. Microsoft says it is reliable if they use some other ISP. You and I know that Bill Gates is the world's second-biggest liar (the biggest is the unelected resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) but they think otherwise. > >but there are lots of cusomters taken in > >by MS bullshit. > > that's really what it all boils down to, i'd say. I agree. They have meaningless checklists of features the will never use. They believe that Bill Gates sells them gold bars when in actuality they are his turds wrapped in gold-coloured aluminium foil. And it is impossible to convince them otherwisse. So do I try to find a way of doing what Exchange can, and (in this case) they have a legitimate need for) or do I just tell them to go elsewhere and get a job as a toilet cleaner because we have no customers? -- Paul Allen Softflare Support
