Need email server aid
alvin at thompsonlogic.com
Tue Apr 27 16:23:14 UTC 2010
Wow, you just like to argue, I guess. From now on, I'm simply going to
ignore everything where you make the same old specious arguments. Simply
repeating what you have already said doesn't make your points any more
valid. If you actually made a counterpoint to my point, I'll answer. I'm
also going to ignore smokescreens--where you try to argue some
ridiculous tangent point that has nothing to do with the discussion,
just because you don't want to admit YOU WERE JUST PLAIN WRONG.
On 04/26/2010 08:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> Did you ever imagine emails being misrouted? That's what happened at
> Oerlikon. All the redundancy in the world will not solve incompetent
> admins. Nice to rely on somebody else to deliver your remote commands eh?
Specious. You can mis-configure any piece of software, not just mail.
> You are just talking about the characteristics of postfix's physical
> queue management. What you described is not true for qmail or sendmail.
This was Chuck's VERY FIRST sentence: "I am running Ubuntu 9.10, with
postfix and dovecot for my email server."
> Well, not running on port 25 will defeat the entire purpose of using
> email to deliver remote commands to the embedded device unless an mta
> somewhere was specifically setup to route appropriately. Why give the
> user so much work when just presenting a http interface would be so much
> easier for them and relatively have less to worry about with regards to
Because HTTP IS UNRELIABLE! What part of that don't you understand?
> Well, if someone wanted to gain control of the thing, they would
> probably know what to put in the email no?
You were talking about spammers, not people who wanted to take control
of the device. Do really think that pretending you were talking about
something else whenever someone demonstrates a flaw in your logic is the
way to win arguments? It just makes you look like you're 12 years old.
> Oh sure. Hopefully, if this is for the home, the user has clue enough to
> do what is needed and correctly. But again, that email address implies a
> central mta that will route the mails to the right device. I must thank
> you for bring up more examples of how much more complex things can get
> to have a system setup that uses smtp for remote control/communication.
A central MTA is more complex than a peer-to-peer network for sending
messages, as you propose? Are you serious?
>> 9. Why on earth would Chuck need to add MX entries for each device? MX
>> entries are only for mail destinations. The devices don't ACCEPT mail,
>> they SEND it. If you want to send mail from one device to another, have
>> the devices get mail addressed to them from the mail server via IMAP or POP.
> He was talking about the devices accepting email.
And I have already pointed out, it would be far easier to get mail to
that device from the server via POP or IMAP. Pretending salient bits of
information never occurred is not the best way to win an argument, either.
> So if it is not an access point, what other kind of wireless embedded
> device needs to be remote controlled?
a music player,
a backup device,
any of about 6 billion other devices,
or how about this: SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN INVENTED YET, WHICH IS WHY
HE'S INVENTING IT.
More information about the ubuntu-users