> > Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a > response): > > Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority." > Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp > host as your primary > MX" > > nolisting.org -> "longterm use has yet to yield a single false positive " > Marc Perkel -> "YES - it works... I have had no false positives at all > using this." > > > I am interested in this technique, and have been for some time. It > seems like every discussion of it leads to a group saying "you will > lose mail" and a group saying "you will not lose mail". Is there any > way to resolve this once and for all? It's hard for me to see why > either side would misrepresent the truth, but obviously someone is > wrong here. > > One thing I notice (and I certainly could be wrong here)... the > proponents seem to be actually using nolisting and claiming no > problems, whilst those against the idea seem to be predicting problems > rather than reporting on actual issues they have experienced. > > -Aaron
Aaron You know, that discrepancy is kinda funny in a way. Almost like the recent congressional testimony over steroid use between the player and his ex-fake-diploma-trainer It is obvious to me he did use because we are told he allowed his WIFE to be shot up with a substance in question. If you allow those you love and that are closest to you to do that which you wont, they you realistically did it too. ;-) One has to by wrong. Well, in a perfect world of tcp/ip and all other network layers, you lose nothing. So theoretically, they are correct. The other camp is taking about what is "practical" and real world based upon usage and error. So practically, they are correct. The world errors on the "side of erroring", meaning there will be errors. Remember science class and the 10% error or fudge factor. Well, 10% is too much here yet way way way less than 1% is probably gonna be ok. The percent of errors is what matters vrs the return on investment of decreased network resources wasted. - rh
