Re: [cobalt-users] Mail relaying

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brent,

I certainly didn't mean to be patronizing.

And although I've thought about it more than once, as of now I am NOT
offering a backup mail service.

But I'd think that if it's too complex for people to do for each other,
yet they want to do it, then a paid service would be a reasonable
option.

Obviously I need to review a lot before I'd offer the service.

And right now I'm much too busy (digesting the new ISP) to even think
about it.

I didn't realize you'd take my response as a request for people to buy a
service.  I really didn't mean it that way.

Having looked over my more recent posts, though, I can see why you took
it that way.  I shall be more careful in the future.

>         I think you missed the point Jeff. I was answering the
> question rather than trying to hustle myself into a higher tax
> bracket. And I stand firm on the answer. But you need not take my
> word for it, it's a well known fact that a disaster MX is only as
> good as long as DNS servers stay alive to advertise it. To get
> around this TTLs are often increased in the zone records to prevent
> the records from timing out. However, long TTLs result in additional
> problems as updates won't take effect until the TTL times out. The
> result is that the best solution, and often used by people who
> actually understand these things, is to setup the disaster Mail
> Exchanger as a primary DNS server for site it is covering.

I think you make a good point here.

> The end result is that we're talking about a fairly complex
> configuration that the GUI is more certainly going to want to
> overwrite as a matter of course.

I agree with this as well.  In fact a week or so ago I discarded the
option of a backup mail-server when having mail server problems:  I had
to close down an open relay server at "mail.ez-access.com" without
enough notice to set up all the mailboxes on the RaQ3i.

And I decided it wasn't worth the effort.  Instead I just let mail
bounce for the few hours it took to finish the job.  And all the mail
was eventually delivered, as far as we can tell; no one got unsubscribed
from any lists, and no one was asked if mail was missing or unanswered.

>         Quite simply, the experise required here is a bit beyond
> someone who would pose the question. That does not mean that such
> questions should not be asked, it means what it means. Doing this is
> not simple, it's not easy and the GUI is not going to like it.

I agree, but I answered, as I sometimes do, and as I agree, I really
shouldn't, with an answer that would work on a generic linux/unix box as
opposed to the RaQ.  I apologize for that.

> } Really?  While I like a separate queue, I'm not sure I remember this
> } from anywhere.  Can you expand a bit?
> 
>         Yes, REALLY. Like it or not, mail is only going to queue so
> long. If the primary mail exchanger is down longer than the default
> queue time the mail will start bouncing off the disaster or backup
> mail exchanger, to prevent the mail from bouncing system admins
> often pull the mail out of the primary queue and create a storage
> queue which has no purpose other than to keep the mail from bouncing
> - which is usually the primary reason for having a backup machine
> configured in the first place.

This was really something I hadn't though out.  And I appreciate your
amplification.  Thank you.

>         It is no secret that experts in this arena (backup mail
> exchangers) recomend doing with out rather than doing with less than
> the best. As I recall, such is stated in both the Bat book and the
> Cricket book.

That's certainly an opinion I'd share.  Looking back through previous
posts to this list you might find me arguing against having a backup
mail server.  I believe that was my position.  It still is for most of
us.

> } So in other words I could get filthy rich offering this as a service,
> } right <smile>?
> 
>         Others have and others are.

The smile was meant as a smile.  I have not become filthy rich off this
list, and I don't think I ever will.  I don't even make a good living
off this list, but since it's not my intention to do so, I don't
consider that a problem.

What I try to do is balance out my helpfulness against my paid jobs, so
I can continue to afford to help.  Recently you might have noticed a few
areas where I've had to ask questions; my knowledge is quite limited,
and I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise.

> } I could set this up on a separate, medium-endowed RHL box here if
> } there's a market for it <smile>.
> 
>         Don't patronize me Jeff. I'll hereby publically apologize
> for thinking that this list, like the many others I frequent, is a
> place where people in similar situations help one another. I didn't
> mean to cut into your meal ticket.

I'm really sorry if you think this list is my meal ticket.  If anyone
should cut back, then, it's me.

I do try to help people.  I spend hours helping people I meat from this
list.  It's no secret that I've become a RaQ consultant.  I don't think
it's a secret that I've done it in response to requests from
list-members.  If it was a secret that it cuts greatly into my core
business, then it isn't anymore.

>         Thus I hereby bow down to your obviously superior knowledge
> and to publically promise not to offer any free advice on your list.

I hope you'll offer any advice you can, either free, or for a charge, as
there certainly is room for both in our community.

And I'm sorry you took my reply so personally.  I shall be more careful
in the future.

(I'm now 834 emails behind on reading this list, but I think a few
hundred came in today.  And I don't choose which to answer; I read the
list strictly as Netscape threads it.  I just click on "next" to read
the next unread email.)

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672
Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 787-8589  *  fax: (909) 782-0205