Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?
Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the
Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant
flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make
Human Errors. ;-)
Lisi
I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available to
me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it. So here is my (mild) protest
publicly. ;-)
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:45:34 Brian wrote:
> On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 11:18:10 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:59:42 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote:
> > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides
> > > you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered).
> >
> > There are occasions when this is several days later, unfortunately.
> > Some of the retry intervals seem to have been set in the days when
> > people/institutions dialled up the internet on a daily schedule.
>
> I think you have moved from unreliability (whatever that means) to
> timeliness of delivery. If you put your mail under the control of
> a third party you presumably accept their conditions. Anyway, what,
> without drowning the internet in frequent retries, would be suitable
> as a sequence of retry intervals? Exim on Debian uses
>
> # This single retry rule applies to all domains and all errors. It
> specifies # retries every 15 minutes for 2 hours, then increasing retry
> intervals, # starting at 1 hour and increasing each time by a factor of
> 1.5, up to 16 # hours, then retries every 6 hours until 4 days have passed
> since the first # failed delivery.
>
> > > The fact that a lot of mail ends up in places where they are never
> > > looked at is a social issue not a technical one.
> >
> > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people
> > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog.
>
> The canine community must feel relief that the canard has been placed
> elsewhere.
Reply to: