Need email server aid

[Alvin Thompson]

On 04/26/2010 09:02 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> 1. HTTP is more reliable than SMTP.
>
> Never said that. ...

Technically, you're right. But you certainly very strongly implied, on 
several occasions, that SMTP was *less* reliable than HTTP. Otherwise, 
we wouldn't be having this conversion.

>> 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.
>
> See above.

<quote who="Christopher Chan">
Hmm, none of them chose to use an existing protocol like smtp with its 
email parsing overhead.
</quote>

>> 3. You'll lose mail sent to you if your SMTP server goes down.
>
> Like when the device is down long enough for the mta to bounce the email.

Not true:

1. The backup server will get the mail.

2. If you for some reason don't have a backup server, It will by default 
take around 5 DAYS or more for the sending mail server to give up. I 
imagine most people can get a mail server up and running in 5 days, even 
if they have to buy and assemble a new computer.

3. If you for some reason don't have a backup server, AND if you can't 
get the computer up and running in 5 days, the mail isn't lost. It's 
returned to the sender.

4. If you for some reason don't have a backup server, AND if for some 
reason you don't think you can get your mail server running in 5 days, 
AND you don't want the mail simply to be returned, you can configure the 
sending mail server to never give up.

But I'll concede this point: if you live in an alternate universe where 
Bizarro Superman exists, and Bizzaro Superman destroys your mail server 
and any backup servers, and every time another mail server tries to send 
a message to your server (which Bizzaro Superman already destroyed), 
Bizzaro Superman flies around the planet really fast to turn back time, 
and then finds the sending server and destroys it, then you'll lose mail.

>> 4. You need a separate MX entry for each client that uses your mail server.
>
> Again, Alvin missed the part where Chuck was thinking of embedding a
> smtp server in the devices for accept remote commands via email. Each
> device would need either an MX or a host record in DNS.

Not true. http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#transport_maps

>> 5. Spam can still get in your queue if the SMTP server requires a valid
>> client certificate.
>
> Never said that nor did I argue the point of using certificates. If I
> were to say something, it would be, this is painful for setting up.

<quote who="Christopher Chan">
Assuming there are no queues due to a bounce flood, due to spam clogging 
the queues and a host of other possible impediments, you expect 40 
different mx/host records to be setup for a roll out involving 40 of 
Chuck's access point?
</quote>

>> 6. Mail servers only have one queue.
>
> Which is true depending on mta and setup but I never said mail servers
> only have one queue.

<quote who="Christopher Chan">
Assuming there are no queues due to a bounce flood, due to spam clogging 
the queues and a host of other possible impediments, you expect 40 
different mx/host records to be setup for a roll out involving 40 of 
Chuck's access point?
</quote>

At the very least, you have substantial misconceptions on how the queues 
work,if you think a flood of bounces or spam will stop mail from getting 
through.