Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 19:16:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 6:36 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > You are guaranteeing the remote MTA will have 100% uptime and sends
> > mails and non-delivery messages in a timely fashion? And yes, knowing
> > the mail was accepted by the destination MTA is important; when someone
> > says they haven't received a mail from me I can demonstrate otherwise.
> >
>
> If they are a good ISP, then they will have higher uptime than you do!
We are about equal, I expect. I don't use them so don't know.
> And even if they are down - your local system will tell you and you can
> try again later.
If I send directly there is one less point of failure.
> But you also seem to think that just because the remote MTA accepted the
> email the user got it. That is not necessarily so - for a lot of
> reasons. For instance, many MTA's will silently drop emails to a bad
> address rather than rejecting them. It makes it much harder for a
> spammer to discover whether an email is valid or not.
No, I do not think that. I think that if the remote MTA accepted the
mail then the remote MTA accepted that mail and can prove it.
The recipient not getting the mail is an issue for her not me. She can
claim the dog chewed it up or that a spam trap eat it. What she cannot
claim is that it wasn't delivered to her designated place. If she did
not get the mail (technically it has been received) she will need to
investigate her own network and her ISP's.
> > Compromised? No need to worry; everything is in capable hands. Unlike
> > the large ISP networks which harbour spam bots.
>
> Then prove it to your ISP. And please name "the large ISP networks
> which harbor spam bots".
No need to prove it; my ISP regularily inspects my network. 10/10 every
time and a 15 year unblemished record.
You won't find my small network here
http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks/
Reply to: