Re: Branden's mail policies
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:40:19PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005.06.19.1153 +0200]:
>> DULs are considered stupid, you might as well just deny mail from
> I disagree. These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
> server with proper queuing. That does not mean they can protect it
> against relaying. I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone
> should run a mail spool on a dial-up.
Because the recipient's MX might be off-line, or otherwise unable /
unwilling to take the message right now. I *really* want my computer
to try again later in this case, not force me to do it manually. Thus
my computer to have a mail spool.
> It's dangerous to others. The only reason is because they consider
> themselves too good to spool via their providers.
No, it is because I don't know any provider that will let me look at
their mail spool, change retry times for messages in the spool,
etc. If the mail cannot be delivered for a longer time, but always for
"temporary reasons" (4xx SMTP return codes, for example), get informed
only after SEVERAL DAYS. That's unacceptable. I lose control of my
mail if I hand it over to another spool.
Plus, it gives my provider an easier path into snooping my mail. With
direct-MX delivery, there is a least a chance that the SMTP session
will be TLS-encrypted. My provider would have to mount an _active_
attack (vs passive) to snoop on that mail.