Need email server aid

[Alvin Thompson]

On 04/25/2010 07:38 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> I doubt that using smtp, however secured, for auto configuration or
> whatever automatic stuff is a good idea.

You use it to automatically receive email, don't you?  I imagine even 
the important ones...

I've been a paid software engineer for 20 years, and  people use SMTP 
for this role all the time.  Talk about a track record--SMTP reliably 
transports BILLIONS of messages PER DAY.  It has been honed for that 
purpose for over 20 years.  It's the most vetted software on the planet. 
  You can even use SMTP instead of HTTP as the transport for servlets, 
JSP pages and web services.  It's just like HTTP in this role except, 
you know, it's reliable.

If you've ever used that thingy they call the World Wide Web, you've 
sometimes clicked in a link and nothing happened, or the page didn't 
fully load.  Then you either had to click the link again and/or reload 
the page.  That's because HTTP is unreliable and sometimes the signal 
doesn't get through.  When was the last time you sent an email that was 
properly addressed, wasn't detected as spam, and the email system was 
properly configured, that didn't get through?  In fact, I'm willing to 
bet you a gazillion dollars that this message will indeed make it to the 
mailing list, and when the mailing list sends this email out to all of 
it's subscribers, all of them, including you, will get it.  Assuming 
their systems are properly configured.

I can't believe Thunderbird's spell checker knows the word "gazillion".

> /me stares at list of various protocols, proprietary and open, used for
> router/switch/access-point configuration/communication.
>
> Hmm, none of them chose to use an existing protocol like smtp with its
> email parsing overhead.

That argument subverts the point you were just trying to make.  The 
configuration of the devices you just mentioned is meant to be done 
MANUALLY--not automatically--, by a human in real time.  So the human 
takes on the task of verifying the message was sent.  For example, when 
he sees the "Changes Saved" screen.

Overhead, BTW, had nothing to do with it.  Unless you expect people to 
be reconfiguring their system millions of times per day.

> Reliability of smtp? I suppose if delays of five days or a day are
> tolerated or not at all....

You're proving MY point with that one.  That shows that SMTP will not 
stop until it sends the message, even if it takes 5 days.  HTTP would 
have long since given up.  In fact, you can configure SMTP to NEVER stop 
until it gets the job done, or until it dies trying.  Just like Arnold 
in that movie.

If there are no problems with the connection and SMTP is configured for 
speed, it will generally take in the order of milliseconds to send a 
message to its destination.