On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 18:12, Paul L. Allen wrote: > > 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.
how does exchange, or postfix, or exim, or any other MTA deal with the situation? It doesn't. You can't. It's your ISP. once again, do not blame your shitty isp on qmail, and don't blame your email problems caused by your shitty isp on 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. again, how is qmail different in your situation than any other MTA? > Please adjust to reality. praise what you preach. > 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. if you had users who were as smart as the bofh you wouldn't have a job, they'd have it. You've obviously proven your ignorance of the matter by blaming qmail for the problems you're experiencing when in fact the problem has NOTHING AT ALL to do with qmail. > > >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. So, you judge qmail's usage by the number of hits on your mirror that you run on your adsl line with the dynamic IP address? Please. > > 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). Many PHB's have know clue what MTA means, let alone the technical details about how they operate. They tend to choose the email server that looks the most shiny, and not the one that works the best. > > > 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. hotmail isn't using qmail. who cares, hotmail has already been proven to be one of the worst email providers out there. Have you been following the qmail list lately? Almost daily "my emails aren't getting to hotmail" > > 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. we don't need to prove it's increasing, as we didn't say it was. You stated that its usage was decreasing. back up your claims. > > >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? ok, you say 'doing what exchange can' I assume you are referring to your problem with the switching IPs. How exactly does exchange handle that? Does it have some sort of magic that catches email going to another IP address from a downed link? no. It doesn't. -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..................... Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. www.inter7.com 866.528.3530 toll free 847.492.0470 int'l 847.492.0632 fax GNUPG key ID: 93BDD6CE -- Jeremy Kitchen Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..................... Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. www.inter7.com 866.528.3530 toll free 847.492.0470 int'l 847.492.0632 fax GNUPG key ID: 93BDD6CE
