Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server
On 7/29/2014 9:47 AM, Brian wrote:
> 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.
>
This is where you are incorrect. All you know is the MTA accepted the
email. You have no idea what the MTA did with the email after that.
> 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.
>
Yes, she can. All YOU can claim is it was delivered to her MTA. You
can NOT guarantee it was delivered to her. There are many reasons
(valid and invalid) that can cause this.
And in any case, the exact same argument occurs when you use your ISP's
MTA. The only difference is you're more likely to get the email
delivered to the MTA.
>>> 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/
>
>
Not now. But that does not mean your record will REMAIN unblemished.
Jerry
Reply to: