1 |
On 8/21/20 4:10 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: |
2 |
> On 8/21/20 11:01 AM, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: |
3 |
>> yes, i do consider re-inventing octagonal wheels. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> I think that it's occasionally a good thing to have a thought experiment |
6 |
> about how $THING might be made better. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> It's probably good to have discussions around green feel types of |
9 |
> replacements. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> But it's important to eventually assess the pros and cons of the old (as |
12 |
> it exists), the new (as from green field), and the transition between |
13 |
> the two. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Sometimes the new doesn't warrant the transition, but it does provide an |
16 |
> option that might be worth augmenting into the old. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> If nothing else, it's good to have the discussions and be able to answer |
19 |
> why something was done or chosen to remain the same. |
20 |
> |
21 |
>> here, i'm just "asking" to see what makes the "safely stored" guarantee. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> MTAs are supposed to be written such that they commit the message to |
24 |
> persistent storage medium (disk) before returning an OK message to the |
25 |
> sending server. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> There is some nebulous area around what that actually means.� But the |
28 |
> idea is that the receiving server believes, in good faith, that it has |
29 |
> committed the message to persistent storage.� Usually this involves |
30 |
> writing the message to disk, probably via a buffered channel, and then |
31 |
> issued system calls to ask the OS to flush the buffer to disk. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Is there room for error?� Probably. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Had the server made (more than) reasonable effort to commit the message |
36 |
> to disk?� Yes. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> The point being, don't acknowledge receipt of the message while the |
39 |
> message is only in the MTA's memory buffer.� Take some steps to commit |
40 |
> it to persistent storage. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> That being said, there are some questionable servers / configurations |
43 |
> that will bypass this safety step in the name of performance.� And they |
44 |
> /do/ /loose/ /email/ as a negative side effect if (when) they do crash. |
45 |
> This is a non-default behavior that has been explicitly chosen by the |
46 |
> administrators to violate the SMTP specification.� Some MTAs will log a |
47 |
> warning that they are configured to violate RFCs. |
48 |
> |
49 |
>> got any specific definition of what makes a storage "guaranteed"? e.g. |
50 |
>> what kind of tests does the mail server do in order to say "yup, i can |
51 |
>> now guarantee this is stored safely!"? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> It's more that they do something safe (write the message to disk) |
54 |
> instead of risky (only store it in memory). |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Everything can fail at some point.� It's a matter of what and how many |
57 |
> reasonable steps did you take to be safe.� Read: Don't cut corners and |
58 |
> do something risky. |
59 |
> |
60 |
>> i guess you think that i meant that a relay should be mandatory? |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Sending / outbound SMTP servers /are/ a relay for any messages not |
63 |
> destined to the local server. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> There is almost always at least two SMTP servers involved in any given |
66 |
> email delivery.� All but the final receiving system is a relay. |
67 |
> |
68 |
>> (yes, a relay doesn't have to be used.� i'm just describing some uses |
69 |
>> of relays that i think make sense.� (1) indicate trust hierarchy, (2) |
70 |
>> offload mail delivery so that i can close my laptop and let the relay |
71 |
>> have fun with the retries.� not sure there is any other use.� anyone?) |
72 |
> |
73 |
> There are many uses for email relays.� A common one, and best practice, |
74 |
> is to have an /inbound/ relay, commonly known as a backup email server. |
75 |
> The idea being it can receive inbound messages while the primary email |
76 |
> server is down (presumably for maintenance). |
77 |
> |
78 |
> Many SaaS Email Service Providers (ESPs) /are/ relay servers.� They |
79 |
> receive email from someone and send it to someone else. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> A number of email hygiene appliances function as an email relay between |
82 |
> the world and your ultimate internal email server.� Services that filter |
83 |
> inbound email qualify here too. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> It is common, and I think it's best practice, to have web applications |
86 |
> send email via localhost, which is usually a relay to a more capable hub |
87 |
> email server which sends outbound email.� Both of these layers are relays. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> A relay is the same thing for email that a router is for a network. |
90 |
|
91 |
WOW do I love these discussions, but let me 'cut to the chase'. |
92 |
|
93 |
I'm proposing, via a small corp I own, to purchase up to (3) dual |
94 |
Rasp.pi 4 setups of (2) R.Pi.4 8gig ram setups |
95 |
and send them to the devs WE all decide on. Let's us start compiling up |
96 |
the codes, keep it simple (for now) and implement them with gentoo-users |
97 |
as the testers of the email services. |
98 |
|
99 |
|
100 |
These discussions should be continued to everyone's benefit. However |
101 |
there are way more than (3) folks on these threads who are most capable |
102 |
to do this community prototyping. If WE do not act and get hundreds of |
103 |
these deployed, email, as we know it via RFCS and other standards may |
104 |
just disappeaar, or be relegated to the far reaches of the Internet. |
105 |
What I have read, is standards based email services, particularly by |
106 |
small organizations, are under extreme pressure by large corporations to |
107 |
be marginalized out of existence. |
108 |
|
109 |
So any of the folks in these treads can announce publically, or send me |
110 |
private email as to your concerns. Public is best, but, I understand the |
111 |
needs for private communications sometimes. So yea, I'll personally |
112 |
finaces, at least 6 months of (3) projects. |
113 |
I'll take all input, but will make my (funding) decision, in a focus, |
114 |
quick strategy. |
115 |
|
116 |
James Horton, pe |