Re: [OT] HELP!!! mail attack

["Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan gmail com>]

On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 12:52 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> <pocallaghan gmail com> wrote:
>         On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 20:16 +1030, Tim wrote:
>         > Anyone who argues that email shouldn't be a reliable
>         mechanism is
>         > skirting the issue.  It should be.  There's no excuse it not
>         to be.
>         
>         
>         AFAIK no-one is arguing that it *shouldn't* be (in the sense
>         that in
>         some ideal alternate universe we wouldn't want it to be), but
>         that it
>         *isn't*.
>         
>         And to say "there's no excuse for it not to be" is either a
>         misstatement
>         of what you mean or evidence of a jaw-dropping
>         misunderstanding of how
>         the Internet works. As I can't believe you really mean the
>         latter, I
>         guess it must be the former. Or maybe we have different
>         conceptions of
>         what "reliable" means.
>         
>         As I pointed out in an earlier message, there are situations
>         in which
>         not using greylisting leads to a measurably less reliable mail
>         service.
>         Not all situations, maybe not your situation, but I know they
>         exist
>         because I've seen them.
>         
> 
> I thought email  was supposed to be a best effort delivery service. We
> may take that it always or usually always works for granted
> but .......

My point exactly.

poc