Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by logifail 256 days ago
> it was the fact that I needed 100% uptime or risk losing messages

Q: If your server(s) is/are offline for a few hours, why would you "lose messages"?

I've just checked my own email server -> "up 219 days"

Honestly, compared with the stuff we do all day, this is not hard...
1 comments
toast0 256 days ago
> Q: If your server(s) is/are offline for a few hours, why would you "lose messages"?

They said...

>> Email is supposed to be resilient to down time (retries, trying each MX record, etc.) but I found that large mail providers tend to just bounce and walk away.

I take that to mean that if your server isn't availble to receive the mail at the time it is first offered, it won't be retried later. That wasn't the case (for most mail) when I gave up on self hosting 10 years ago, but it's plausible.

link
Krei-se 256 days ago
It's not reasonable. Mail not deliverable is not the same as house burned down, recipient moved unknown or sth, it simply means the letter was not received. Who and why messed up is unknown, thus NO mail server will mark you down after a single attempt.

Host your own!!

link
toast0 256 days ago
Reasonable and plausible are different things. I wouldn't be surprised if some outgoing servers just never get around to sending retries.
link
logifail 256 days ago
> I take that to mean that if your server isn't availble to receive the mail at the time it is first offered, it won't be retried later.

Umm, RFC 5321, which describes queuing and retry? SMTP is designed to be very forgiving of transient network issues.

> That wasn't the case (for most mail) when I gave up on self hosting 10 years ago, but it's plausible

Plausible? To those of us who run our own mailservers, the OP's statement is an extraordinary claim.

link