On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 12:52 -0400, max bianco wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan > <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > I thought email was supposed to be a best effort delivery service. We > may take that it always or usually always works for granted > but ....... My point exactly. poc
