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.
