On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 08:49 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 20:16 +1030, Tim wrote: > > Anyone who argues that email shouldn't be a reliable mechanism is > > skirting the issue. It should be. There's no excuse it not to be. > > AFAIK no-one is arguing that it *shouldn't* be (in the sense that in > some ideal alternate universe we wouldn't want it to be), but that it > *isn't*. > > And to say "there's no excuse for it not to be" is either a misstatement > of what you mean or evidence of a jaw-dropping misunderstanding of how > the Internet works. As I can't believe you really mean the latter, I > guess it must be the former. Or maybe we have different conceptions of > what "reliable" means. > > As I pointed out in an earlier message, there are situations in which > not using greylisting leads to a measurably less reliable mail service. > Not all situations, maybe not your situation, but I know they exist > because I've seen them. ---- Since Tim has already stated that this technology (greylisting) is intentional sabotage and he would never hire someone who would implement the technology, there is no way that he will agree with you. Considering that there are multiple greylisting mechanisms for each smtp package and there are a large amount of implementations of greylisting, there clearly are a lot of system administrators that concur that the technology is worthwhile if not essential. Tim is utterly incapable of seeing someone else's point of view, clearly on this issue and I would submit, this is not a unique observation. Craig
