Re: thoughts on spam

[Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>]

"Matt Armstrong" <matt+dated+1007668931.c8f542@lickey.com> writes:

>> The reason I kept on with this discussion is because you made a
>> point in counter to `Rat' that if we/you dropped software because it
>> screwed us we would drop gnus.
>>
>> However, if I understood `Rat' correctly he was taling about mail
>> being thoroughly trashed, not surviving in special backupfiles
>> provided by the software in question.
>
> I'm no longer entirely sure what we're talking about here.

Let me refresh your memory.. You can review the relevant sections
below..

You've made a strong statement here concerning gnus screwing you over:

Rat was clearly talking about a real calamity of *LOST* mail. You were
talking about a situation were you `lost mail' as if comparable.  Then
it turned out you lost no mail at all, and further that the software
screwing you over, saved it in backup files for you.  Something
designed into it for just such an event.

That was what piqued my interest.  
========================================

Message-ID: <87n122s9k8.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com>

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> * "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-1005548826.22b028@mastaler.com>  on Sun, 04 Nov 2001
> | Anyway, Postfix and Exim are reasonable Sendmail-alternatives as well.
>
> They are -not- reasonable for -all- cases.  I have seen Postfix's
> parallelization totally cripple my network at work.  As far as we
> could figure, Postfix did not ratchet down fast enough and the end
> result was a crashed firewall MTA and an unknown quantity of lost
> mail.  We reset everything and Postfix did it again.  I have little

[...]

========================================

Matt writes:
Message-ID: <87n122s9k8.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com>
FUD -- you can configure postfix such that there is zero possibility
that it'll flood your network.

========================================
Rat writes:
Message-ID: <m3y9lmqn5t.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>

* "Matt Armstrong" <matt+dated+1007488665.146847@lickey.com>  on Sun, 04 Nov 2001
| FUD -- you can configure postfix such that there is zero possibility
| that it'll flood your network.

Your -assertion- does not make it so.

The fact that it -has- happened is sufficient reason to be wary of it,
because there is a non-zero possibility of it happening again, no matter
what you say.
========================================

Matt Writes
Message-ID: <87g07tgqeu.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com>

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes:

> * "Matt Armstrong" <matt+dated+1007488665.146847@lickey.com>  on Sun, 04 Nov 2001
> | FUD -- you can configure postfix such that there is zero possibility
> | that it'll flood your network.
>
> Your -assertion- does not make it so.
>
> The fact that it -has- happened is sufficient reason to be wary of it,
> because there is a non-zero possibility of it happening again, no matter
> what you say.

Of course, if I dumped every software package that ever screwed me
over due to a mis-configuration, I'd have dumped Gnus years ago.  ;-)
========================================