Hi Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email program with mail fetching and mail sending. -- -- Med vänliga hälsningar Fredrik Gustafsson tel: 0733-608274 e-post: iveqy <at> iveqy.com
* Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy <at> iveqy.com> [07-25-12 04:54]: > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email > program with mail fetching and mail sending. Haven't noticed the *movement* you cite. I have used mutt since leaving os/2 for linux > 10 years ago and it had those capabilities then, if memory serves. -- -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 <at> http://linuxcounter.net
Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:59:08AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > Haven't noticed the *movement* you cite. I have used mutt since leaving > os/2 for linux > 10 years ago and it had those capabilities then, if > memory serves. Well, there were times when Mutt wasn't able to send mail using plain SMTP (only sendmail-alike binary interface was supported), but otherwise you're correct -- fetching mail via POP3/IMAP and sending mails were supported for ages. -- -- rea
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote: > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email > program with mail fetching and mail sending. Because MUAs really need to do those things in order to be considered fully functional, and because the internet landscape has made it hard for users to run their own services (thank you, spammers). It's really not reasonable to expect or ask users to be fully knowledgable about setting up and maintaining a full-fledged MTA just so they can send e-mail. It's way out of the scope of most people's needs. Granted, there are small, bolt-on apps that do most of these things, but then users need to learn how to configure many different applications with completely different configuration mechansims, instead of just one consistent one. In this day and age, it's too much to ask. Computers are meant to work for humans, not the other way around. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a HUGE fan of the Unix philosophy, and the power of the command line... But there are times when one giant monolithic application with a simple interface and reasonable defaults really is what you need. -- -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.(Continue reading)
=- Derek Martin wrote on Fri 27.Jul'12 at 13:38:38 -0500 -=
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> > program with mail fetching and mail sending.
>
> {...} and because the internet landscape has made it hard for
> users to run their own services (thank you, spammers).
Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't make a
difference for the ISP, it can't tell what software executes the SMTP.
> It's really not reasonable to expect or ask users to be fully
> knowledgable about setting up and maintaining a full-fledged MTA
> just so they can send e-mail. It's way out of the scope of most
> people's needs.
a) Popular distros provide easy to use MTA support.
b) being totally dumb about how eMail works isn't desirable either. ;)
> {...} but then users need to learn how to configure many different
> applications with completely different configuration mechansims,
> instead of just one consistent one. In this day and age, it's too
> much to ask.
Heh. :)
Why is it now but worked before?
Has humankind been dumbed down?
Should we support this trend? ;)
(Continue reading)On Saturday, July 28 at 11:19 AM, quoth Rado Q: >I like things to be simple & easy to use, too. >But within its own area of operation. >I prefer modular solutions to use them as _I_ like them, gives me >more power, less dependence on fixed or not easily changed features. So we're agreed, then: mutt shall continue to allow you to use a sendmail-style program and will not require you to even compile smtp support! :) ~Kyle -- -- It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly be wrong. -- Gilbert K. Chesterton
=- Kyle Wheeler wrote on Sat 28.Jul'12 at 11:34:35 -0600 -= > So we're agreed, then: mutt shall continue to allow you to use a > sendmail-style program and will not require you to even compile > smtp support! :) Heh... ... you know, once the dark side has been opened, everything will eventually follow its path, because it's so easy... why bother? so I'll end up writing my own mail interface. ;) -- -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> > > program with mail fetching and mail sending.
> >
> > {...} and because the internet landscape has made it hard for
> > users to run their own services (thank you, spammers).
>
> Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't make a
> difference for the ISP, it can't tell what software executes the SMTP.
No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to
configure. If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the MSP
port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn a lot
about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be able to send
an e-mail.
> > It's really not reasonable to expect or ask users to be fully
> > knowledgable about setting up and maintaining a full-fledged MTA
> > just so they can send e-mail. It's way out of the scope of most
> > people's needs.
>
> a) Popular distros provide easy to use MTA support.
> b) being totally dumb about how eMail works isn't desirable either. ;)
Sure it is. Most people who use e-mail have no interest in learning
all the ins and outs of how e-mail works. They just want to
communicate effectively with their colleagues/family/etc. I happen to
know a lot about e-mail, since I needed to in order to do my job; but
if that weren't the case, I wouldn't care one bit about how it all
(Continue reading)
On 2012-07-30 12:42:32 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:19:25AM +0200, Rado Q wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > > > Just of curiosity, why are mutt moving away from a mua to a full email
> > > > program with mail fetching and mail sending.
> > >
> > > {...} and because the internet landscape has made it hard for
> > > users to run their own services (thank you, spammers).
> >
> > Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't make a
> > difference for the ISP, it can't tell what software executes the SMTP.
>
> No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to
> configure. If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the MSP
> port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn a lot
> about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be able to send
> an e-mail.
No-one is forced to use sendmail. Is there any advantage of using
a built-in SMTP-client instead of a standalone SMTP-client? By
that, I mean: is there any advantage of having a single process
rather than two different processes?
I would rather see a standalone SMTP-client (possibly designed for
Mutt users) than a built-in SMTP-client: if there's a bug in the
SMTP-client (yielding a crash or memory corruption), it won't affect
the main process. And this is true for any feature that could be
implementated as a separate process *without much drawback*.
[...]
(Continue reading)On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:41:07PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-07-30 12:42:32 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to > > configure. If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the MSP > > port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn a lot > > about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be able to send > > an e-mail. > > No-one is forced to use sendmail. Is there any advantage of using > a built-in SMTP-client instead of a standalone SMTP-client? By > that, I mean: is there any advantage of having a single process > rather than two different processes? Yes, I already more or less gave it, but I'll be more explicit: one consistent configuration interface, more consistent user interface, one manual to read. Less to remember, less complexity to manage. Computers are much better at managing complexity than humans, and I think it's fair to say that the average software developer is better at managing complexity than the average e-mail user. Mutt users are not generally average e-mail users, so the line becomes more fuzzy; but I still believe it's better to put the complexity in your code than in your user interface. Just get it right. =8^) > [...] > > Many of us don't agree. Mutt solves a whole class of mail-related > > problems that other clients don't solve, or solve poorly; but at the > > same time, there are a lot of things that people who use e-mail do > > that mutt doesn't handle well. The biggest one IMO is HTML mail... > > It's very popular, as it allows people formatting options that are > > very useful for written communications. Mutt handles this rather(Continue reading)
On 2012-07-31 12:46:33 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:41:07PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > No-one is forced to use sendmail. Is there any advantage of using > > a built-in SMTP-client instead of a standalone SMTP-client? By > > that, I mean: is there any advantage of having a single process > > rather than two different processes? > > Yes, I already more or less gave it, but I'll be more explicit: one > consistent configuration interface, more consistent user interface, > one manual to read. Less to remember, less complexity to manage. This point is a personal view. Under a context where mail can be sent by several users on the system (even though it has only one physical user), one may want a specific configuration interface and a specific manual for the SMTP part, with a consistent config for all the users. Remember that mail can come from different services, even for end users: cron, diffmon, etc. There's also the case where the user is just the end user of the machine, not the admin, and he doesn't necessarily have the information for the SMTP config if he doesn't want to use the usual sendmail interface. And queue management is better done globally (how does Mutt's SMTP support manage temporary errors due to grey-listing?). What's important is that the user should be able to choose, depending on his use of the mail. If there's a single manual for Mutt and the SMTP part specific to Mutt, then fine, but the SMTP part should have its own chapter, so that a user who won't have to deal with SMTP directly doesn't waste time by all the SMTP-related features provided by the MUA.(Continue reading)
I'm mostly avoiding this conversation, as I avoid most, because my mutt contributions are at the level of "several patches, only a few accepted into mutt itself". One point I'll comment on, with my MTA developer/maintainer hat on: On 2012-08-02 at 16:38 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > And queue management is better done globally (how does > Mutt's SMTP support manage temporary errors due to grey-listing?). Grey-listing is a solution for the MX port to deal with previously-unseen-IP(-some-tuple) unauthenticated senders. Mail submission from an MUA should be going to the submission port (587/tcp) and probably authenticating with SMTP AUTH; if not AUTHenticating, it should be on a trusted IP and implicitly authenticated by being on an internal network. If your mail admin has configured greylisting to apply to such a case, then it's time to have a quiet polite word with them until clue strikes and they wince and fix the problem. Similarly for anything else which introduces delays in the sending process which is visible to the user of the mail-client. (Eg, reverse DNS checks on client IP). MX != Submission. Even though the core protocol is mostly the same, the policies and controls should be very different. -Phil
On 2012-08-03 22:51:08 -0700, Phil Pennock wrote: > Mail submission from an MUA should be going to the submission port > (587/tcp) and probably authenticating with SMTP AUTH; if not > AUTHenticating, it should be on a trusted IP and implicitly > authenticated by being on an internal network. That may be the best solution, but the end user doesn't necessarily have a machine providing such a service (or it may be unreliable because shared with other users and also used by spammers). In such a case, the user would want to use the MX of the destination address. -- -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
On Tuesday, July 31 at 02:41 PM, quoth Vincent Lefevre: > I would rather see a standalone SMTP-client (possibly designed for > Mutt users) than a built-in SMTP-client: There *is* one! It's called msmtp. :) On their wiki, they say "It was designed with Mutt in mind, which is where the M came from". > I agree, as long as it remains optional. In particular, I miss mouse > support (e.g. fast scrolling with a mouse). If a GUI is implemented, > there should be a way to switch to the text interface (and back to > the GUI) without quitting the Mutt session. Strictly speaking, a GUI is not necessary for fast scrolling; I have scrolling in my terminal Vim, and have had for quite some time. (From what I understand, it's a bit of a beast to do, though.) ~Kyle -- -- People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. -- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
In reply to eMail from 2012-07-30 17:42:32 when Derek Martin wrote:
> > > {...} and because the internet landscape has made it hard for
> > > users to run their own services (thank you, spammers).
> >
> > Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't
> > make a difference for the ISP, it can't tell what software
> > executes the SMTP.
>
> No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to
> configure. If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the
> MSP port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn
> a lot about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be
> able to send an e-mail.
Why not?
You don't need to be a scientist about chemistry and physics to
drive a car, but you must learn some basics before you are allowed.
The more advanced the car & features, the more you must know.
Technically you can drive without permission by simply pressing the
pedals, but we demand more for some good reason.
If everything works out of the black box, you never get to think
about how it all works.
Back to your previous comment:
independent of the spammers the "how to use" hasn't changed, they
didn't make it harder to establish the standard setup.
I'm talking about the qualification required for that which hasn't
changed, not the ability to setup half-baked open-relays which then
are denied by the ISPs.
(Continue reading)On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:01:10AM +0200, Rado Q wrote: > > > Using built-in SMTP-client or a standalone SMTP-client doesn't > > > make a difference for the ISP, it can't tell what software > > > executes the SMTP. > > > > No, but it makes a difference to the USER. Mutt is already hard to > > configure. If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the > > MSP port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn > > a lot about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be > > able to send an e-mail. > > Why not? For the same reason one should not need to become a doctor to use a human body. It's superfluous, for the overwhelming majority of users. Learning how to use your body (or e-mail client), on the other hand, is very much relevant, and along the way you will likely pick up some basic knowledge of medicine (or mail transport), on those occasions when things go wrong; but for the day-to-day use of your body (or e-mail client), it's completely and utterly superfluous. And that's as it should be. And if things never go wrong, you'll never need that info. Now, YOU may happen to find it interesting, and if you do, by all means go off and learn about it. But by all means, leave the rest of us alone.(Continue reading)> Back to your previous comment: > independent of the spammers the "how to use" hasn't changed, they > didn't make it harder to establish the standard setup. > I'm talking about the qualification required for that which hasn't > changed, not the ability to setup half-baked open-relays which then
=- Derek Martin wrote on Sun 5.Aug'12 at 11:04:03 -0500 -= > > > If you have to configure sendmail to talk SMTP on the MSP > > > port, enable STARTTLS, pop-before-smtp, etc. you need to learn > > > a lot about sendmail. No one should need to do that just to be > > > able to send an e-mail. > > > > Why not? > > For the same reason one should not need to become a doctor to use > a human body. Wow... didn't think of it as "natural" thing you have when born. > It's superfluous, for the overwhelming majority of users. If they were more "aware" they'd not be easy prey for phishing and the like or minor technical issues. > but for the day-to-day use of your body (or e-mail client), it's > completely and utterly superfluous. It helps to know "heat is bad" not to hurt yourself by fire, interaction with others our there, etc. Basics _not_ given when born. > And if things never go wrong, you'll never need that info. Mistake. Sometimes things go wrong unnoticed because people "don't know" to pay attentiond and then you get excuses like "I didn't(Continue reading)
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Rado Q wrote: > > It's superfluous, for the overwhelming majority of users. > > If they were more "aware" they'd not be easy prey for phishing and > the like or minor technical issues. Learning how to set up an SMTP client, let alone a full MTA, is not going to save you from this, nor will it actually help you in most cases you run into where your outgoing e-mail breaks. More than likely, it's broken because your ISP has an outage or changed something, and you're going to have to call them to get them to fix it. Only in rare cases will your MTA knowledge help you, and even then you'll still usually be at the mercy of your provider. > > Now, YOU may happen to find it interesting, and if you do, by all > > means go off and learn about it. But by all means, leave the rest > > of us alone.(Continue reading)
On 2012-08-05 20:43:21 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Rado Q wrote: > > > It's superfluous, for the overwhelming majority of users. > > > > If they were more "aware" they'd not be easy prey for phishing and > > the like or minor technical issues. > > Learning how to set up an SMTP client, let alone a full MTA, is not > going to save you from this, Under Debian, there is almost nothing to set up the MTA. The user just has to answer a few questions, basically to choose whether he wants to send mail directly or use a smarthost (in which case he needs to give the hostname/address of the smarthost), and that's all. I don't see how a MUA with SMTP support could be easier to configure (possibly more powerful, but not easier). > nor will it actually help you in most cases you run into where your > outgoing e-mail breaks. More than likely, it's broken because your > ISP has an outage or changed something, and you're going to have to > call them to get them to fix it. By switching the MTA config to direct (e.g. by answering the same questions as above), the user won't need to call his ISP, in particular if this is at night or if the ISP's gateway is blacklisted (sometimes for a wrong reason). -- -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>(Continue reading)
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:12:48AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > By switching the MTA config to direct (e.g. by answering the same > questions as above), the user won't need to call his ISP, in > particular if this is at night or if the ISP's gateway is blacklisted > (sometimes for a wrong reason). Maybe where you live, but on most major providers' networks in North America, outgoing SMTP is blocked, as I have said repeatedly in this thread. It's not an option for us unless we buy business class service or find some local niche provider. -- -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
On 2012-08-05 21:55:46 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:12:48AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > By switching the MTA config to direct (e.g. by answering the same > > questions as above), the user won't need to call his ISP, in > > particular if this is at night or if the ISP's gateway is blacklisted > > (sometimes for a wrong reason). > > Maybe where you live, but on most major providers' networks in North > America, outgoing SMTP is blocked, as I have said repeatedly in this > thread. It's not an option for us unless we buy business class > service or find some local niche provider. Anyway, whether the ISP allows direct SMTP access (in France, there's the choice) or not, a MTA (or the package from the OS distribution) should be easy to configure for the most common uses; this is the case in Debian, with direct access or via a gateway. Thus there shouldn't be a real need to have the feature in the MUA, except if one wants to choose the config from a send-hook or something similar. Even on the Nokia N900, where there's no MTA installed by default, the usual suggestion was to use msmtp (though I've never tried). -- -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Hello!
Vincent Lefevre has written on Monday, 6 August, at 15:21:
>Anyway, whether the ISP allows direct SMTP access (in France, there's
>the choice) or not, a MTA (or the package from the OS distribution)
>should be easy to configure for the most common uses; this is the case
>in Debian, with direct access or via a gateway. Thus there shouldn't
>be a real need to have the feature in the MUA, except if one wants to
>choose the config from a send-hook or something similar.
It's exactly what I've tried to say in my previous letter - if MUA
supports SMTP it shouldn't have full-featured SMTP support but use MTA
as local gateway for that. :)
Cheers!
Andriy.
On 2012-08-05 11:04:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > This isn't my comment... Maybe you do not know as much about e-mail > as you think you do. =8^) I'm teasing here, but there's a > pont here: knowing the basics of how STMP works is really irrelevant > to the average user, and is not really helpful in any way to make > them better at reading and writing e-mail -- which, let's be clear, is > what their goal is. That is why people use Mutt... NOT so that they > can learn about obscure networking protocols. All they need to know > is how to configure their e-mail client to talk to their ISP's mail > gateway. But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do. -- -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:41:28PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-08-05 11:04:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > That is why people use Mutt... NOT so that they can learn about > > obscure networking protocols. All they need to know > > is how to configure their e-mail client to talk to their ISP's mail > > gateway. > > But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of > spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do. Of course they do. Call their ISP and complain to them to get it fixed, or get a new ISP. In many places, on many providers' networks, there is no other option for them anyway, because outgoing mail that isn't to their ISP's gateway will be blocked. -- -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
On 2012-08-05 18:03:59 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:41:28PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2012-08-05 11:04:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > > That is why people use Mutt... NOT so that they can learn about > > > obscure networking protocols. All they need to know > > > is how to configure their e-mail client to talk to their ISP's mail > > > gateway. > > > > But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of > > spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do. > > Of course they do. Call their ISP and complain to them to get it > fixed, or get a new ISP. This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or another! Complaining or getting a new ISP won't solve the problem if one has an urgent mail to send. And sometimes that's simply not possible to choose (e.g. at work). > In many places, on many providers' networks, there is no other > option for them anyway, because outgoing mail that isn't to their > ISP's gateway will be blocked. An ISP is there to provide full, unfiltered Internet access. If the user has chosen as ISP that blocks some ports, that's his problem. My machines at home and at work are configured to send mail directly, without using the mail gateway of my ISP (home) or of the lab (work), and everything is fine.(Continue reading)
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of > > > spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do. > > > > Of course they do. Call their ISP and complain to them to get it > > fixed, or get a new ISP. > > This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or > another! Yeah, and most are very responsive when they do have problems, due to the competetive nature of the ISP business (at least, here in North America). Not only is it not a silly answer, it's the ONLY answer, at least for most home users here. > > In many places, on many providers' networks, there is no other > > option for them anyway, because outgoing mail that isn't to their > > ISP's gateway will be blocked. > > An ISP is there to provide full, unfiltered Internet access. If the > user has chosen as ISP that blocks some ports, that's his problem. You'd better stay in Europe, my friend...(Continue reading)
Hello!
Derek Martin has written on Sunday, 5 August, at 22:06:
>On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> An ISP is there to provide full, unfiltered Internet access. If the
>> user has chosen as ISP that blocks some ports, that's his problem.
>You'd better stay in Europe, my friend... ALL major providers
>here block SMTP, most teir II providers do, and the only service
>that's available in most places that doesn't have it blocked is 3x-5x
>more expensive than what most people are willing to pay for internet
>service. You can argue until you're blue in the face that your ISP
>should be what you described, but unless you're in a lucky region with
>an unusually permissive ISP, you ain't gettin' it.
I'm afraid it isn't only in NA but in Europe too as many of providers
these times prevent unsolicited mail and troyans from windoze users by
disabling SMTP and NetBOIS outgoing traffic by default but enabling it
only if user explicitly asks to enable it. And those who are talking
about "unfiltered Internet access" should return to real world where is
some filtering even between major providers.
So in short: MUA talking to MX is unacceptable while MUA using SMTP
is common case now but that SMTP should go to dedicated gateway - either
local or ISP one. dixi.
With best wishes.
Andriy.
On 2012-08-06 12:09:30 +0300, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote: > I'm afraid it isn't only in NA but in Europe too as many of providers > these times prevent unsolicited mail and troyans from windoze users by > disabling SMTP and NetBOIS outgoing traffic by default but enabling it > only if user explicitly asks to enable it. Yes, that's what "Free" does in France. My ISP (Nerim) doesn't "offer" any filtering. Orange disables direct SMTP at least by default (I don't know whether this is configurable), but this is madness, because if you choose to use BIND or an external DNS (there are good reasons to do this), you cannot send mail at all, since the DNS configuration of the e-mail gateways at Orange is broken. > And those who are talking about "unfiltered Internet access" should > return to real world where is some filtering even between major > providers.
On 2012-08-05 22:06:53 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > But when the ISP's mail gateway is down or is blacklisted because of > > > > spammers, the users wouldn't know what to do. > > > > > > Of course they do. Call their ISP and complain to them to get it > > > fixed, or get a new ISP. > > > > This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or > > another! > > Yeah, and most are very responsive when they do have problems, due to > the competetive nature of the ISP business (at least, here in North > America). Not only is it not a silly answer, it's the ONLY answer, at > least for most home users here. I can tell you that in France, this is not the case. I don't know any ISP that has a 24/24 7/7 hotline to report problems on *their* side (but perhaps that's not the case in North America, where I was surprised to see shops open at night, something that is forbidden in France). I know that the staff of my ISP reads their newsgroups at night too, so that can be a way to report problems, but I don't think this is the case with the biggest ISP's here. And if gateways are blacklisted (which is not rare with my ISP, probably because this is a small ISP and it suffices to have one machine compromise to get the gateways blacklisted), the ISP can't do very much (the gateways change everyday because of that, but there still may be a 24-hour delay, and one drawback is that the changing IP address is also a problem with greylisting). My ISP also provides a gateway with spam filtering, so that it never gets blacklisted, but in case(Continue reading)
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or > another! Complaining or getting a new ISP won't solve the problem > if one has an urgent mail to send. Also the notion of urgent e-mail is kind of crazy. As you say, every ISP can have problems. That includes becomming completely unroutable. E-mail is designed to fail -- that is, it's expected to fail for MANY different reasons, and designed to be fault-tolerant; but this includes the idea that your e-mail might take DAYS to be delivered. If your communication really is genuinely urgent, you'd damn well better use something else. -- -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
On 2012-08-05 22:10:22 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:58:19AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > This is a silly answer. Every ISP can have problems one time or > > another! Complaining or getting a new ISP won't solve the problem > > if one has an urgent mail to send. > > Also the notion of urgent e-mail is kind of crazy. As you say, every > ISP can have problems. That includes becomming completely unroutable. > E-mail is designed to fail -- that is, it's expected to fail for MANY > different reasons, and designed to be fault-tolerant; but this > includes the idea that your e-mail might take DAYS to be delivered. Hence the usefulness of direct SMTP access: e-mail is less likely to be affected by network/machine problems. And in general, you know at least that your e-mail message isn't waiting somewhere on your ISP's gateways. If there's a problem on the other side, in general you know it because the e-mail message is still in the queue on your machine. This is based on experience, comparing to other people who use an e-mail gateway. On my side, e-mail works much better! > If your communication really is genuinely urgent, you'd damn well > better use something else. Sometimes there isn't the choice, or if e-mail doesn't work because of something serious not specific to e-mail (e.g. network problem or power outage), the "something else" may not work either. -- -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>(Continue reading)
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:34:27PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-08-05 22:10:22 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > Also the notion of urgent e-mail is kind of crazy. As you say, every > > ISP can have problems. That includes becomming completely unroutable. > > E-mail is designed to fail -- that is, it's expected to fail for MANY > > different reasons, and designed to be fault-tolerant; but this > > includes the idea that your e-mail might take DAYS to be delivered. > > Hence the usefulness of direct SMTP access: e-mail is less likely to > be affected by network/machine problems. If your first-hop router is down, how will that work? If your ISP's gateway router is down, how will that work? If the routes to your network segment are flapping enough to make TCP connections break/time out, how will that work? If your ISP is filtering outgoing STMP, or your recipient's ISP filters SMTP from known consumer IP pools, or you end up on a popular black hole list for these or any other reason, or 100 other things, how will that work? Answer: it won't. Urgent + e-mail = fail (not guaranteed fail, but a much higher chance of fail than you want with something that's urgent). -- -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
On 2012-08-06 12:35:09 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > Urgent + e-mail = fail (not guaranteed fail, but a much higher chance > of fail than you want with something that's urgent). Based on *experience* at home and at work, direct SMTP access is much more reliable than using the gateway. BTW, for my 3G access, I am not aware of any gateway from the ISP. And I won't choose a different ISP (more expensive, less reliable for the connection itself) just because it doesn't provide an e-mail gateway. That would be silly. -- -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent <at> vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
RSS Feed