Need email server aid

[Alvin Thompson]

On 04/25/2010 09:19 PM, Res wrote:
> Sorry but that means nothing, known plenty to have claimed that, and
> many second year uni students easily surpass them.
> (not saying your just beating your chest, maybe you are good, but I dont
> know you, and I doubt many if any here do well enough to back that claim
> up)

That's a logical flaw.  Debate the points, not the messenger.  If a PhD 
came up to you and said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, it doesn't make it any 
more or less true than if a high school dropout told you.

As I said in another post, you might want to check out my resume on my 
web site before you make that assertion.

> Alvin, Chris has probably forgotten more about email than most people will
> ever learn about it.

Apparently not, if he thinks that:

1. HTTP is more reliable than SMTP.
2. SMTP adds too much "parsing overhead" (his words, not mine) for 
sending messages. What! Sending messages is SMTP's *job*, so I imagine 
the overhead is acceptable.
3. You'll lose mail sent to you if your SMTP server goes down.
4. You need a separate MX entry for each client that uses your mail server.
5. Spam can still get in your queue if the SMTP server requires a valid 
client certificate.
6. Mail servers only have one queue.

Those are all ridiculous points he's tried to make.