[Freedombox-discuss] Introductions + failsafe e-mail
Woops, sent this as a personal reply, not to the list. Full message is
2010/9/4 Bjarni R?nar Einarsson <bre at beanstalks-project.net>
> 2010/9/4 paxcoder <paxcoder at gmail.com>
>> On 09/04/2010 05:22 PM, Bjarni R?nar Einarsson wrote:
>>> Generally people seem to be assuming a dynamic DNS provider will be used
>>> in conjunction with these boxes, I am pretty sure at least some of them will
>>> manage MX records for you as well. Maybe even dynamically, which will let
>>> the box do the work.
>> I will not settle for using a service :-(
> DNS is hierarchical, so at some point you will have to use a service if you
> want to be reachable using standard tools. If you are OK with only being
> reachable via. TOR or other such things, then you may be able to avoid
> this... except TOR itself is a service, it's just not a centrally
> administered one. And your ISP is a service provider too.
> Using a service is not a problem, the problems start when service providers
> lock you in and degrade your freedom. If there is real, functioning
> competition in the market (which is certainly the case for DNS and dynamic
> DNS), then using these services poses no problem.
>> For something like a freedom box, which is almost-always online, I don't
>>> really think a secondary MX is going to be necessary. The mail can just sit
>>> on the outgoing server until your box becomes available again.
>> Now that's more like it. But I thought you'd get a "Mail delivery
>> subsystem" message saying 'can't deliver' the moment you send it. Are you
>> saying it's not so, and if yes, how did I miss it?
> Not sure how you missed it! You'll have to tell us! :-)
> Different mail servers behave in different ways.
> Back when I was admining sendmail for an ISP, the "standard" set-up was to
> have the sending mail server keep trying to deliver for a while, and after
> 4-6 hours if it still hasn't succeeded, a warning message was sent to the
> sender advising them that the e-mail is delayed. After another, longer
> period of time (commonly 1-5 days) it would give up and return the message
> to sender as you've described.
> I don't know what the common defaults are today, and I don't know what the
> big guys (Google, Yahoo etc., Microsoft) do, but I expect it is similar.
> The RFC has a few things to say about this:
> Bjarni R. Einarsson
Bjarni R. Einarsson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...