Need email server aid

[Alvin Thompson]

Dude, what is wrong with you?

On 04/28/2010 08:32 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2010 03:01 AM, Alvin Thompson wrote:
>> You don't have to read the whole thread; what it basically boils down to
>> is the statements below. The givens are that you need to send messages
>> from (or to) this device, it's the device that's automatically sending
>> or receiving the messages, not the user, and your choices of technology
>> is a mail server (SMTP) or a web server (HTTP):
>
> He did not say he 'needs' to send messages to the device. He was mulling
> over what he should use for remote control of it which can be done by
> connecting to it by http or by getting a message to it.
>
>
>>
>> 1. I believe that the mail server (SMTP) is a better choice, because the
>> protocol is more reliable.
>
> You don't even know the needs and you have come to a conclusion?
>
>
>>
>> 2. Mr. Chan believes that how much more reliable SMTP is over HTTP is
>> disputable, and any increase in reliability by using SMTP is not worth
>> the added complexity.
>
> Like when this is a product for the home. Setting up a smtp daemon to
> accept messages is not going to fly for the majority out there.
> Supporting a dedicated mailbox that can be accessed by pop3 or imap
> might fly since you are adding support for sending email out via
> smtp-auth if necessary so I take it you target users that are savvy enough.
>
>
>>
>> "Reliability" is defined, for our purposes, as the ability for a message
>> to get through to its destination, without human intervention, in the
>> presence of foreseeable obstacles.  For example, if the network
>> connection goes down.
>
> There is also the question of time depending on case need and in fact
> whether this 'extra' reliability is wanted.
>
>
>>
>> Most of the debate has centered on how much more reliable SMTP really
>> is, and how much more complexity SMTP really adds (if any) over HTTP.
>>
>> Chris, would you agree that's a fair assessment?
>>
>
> Nope. I'd say, "Forget http, go smtp" is your angle and I was entirely
> focused on the extra work needed for smtp to work and other potential
> issues depending on case need whereas I should have just said: "email
> for remote control is a nice extra for edge cases but http is absolutely
> essential" and you were making it out that there are plenty of stuff
> that can be done to ensure that smtp is more reliable than http and
> therefore should be the only solution.
>
> You and I would have no problem setting up whatever infrastructure
> necessary for remote control via email be it a mailbox per device or dns
> or specific routing rules so that emails would actually reach the
> devices. But I would not bother with a device that uses email as its
> sole method of remote control. I doubt that many would like to first
> setup a dedicated pop3/imap mailbox just for that let alone all the
> other stuff necessary if it used an smtp daemon.
>