From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 216A4138350 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DA5AE0F6F; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C02EE0D33 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 036K22gB000986 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 15:02:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Alternate Incoming Mail Server To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200406123504.fkcuaiiahsemympv@ad-gentoo-main> <20200406130812.n4zgquadlgkggi7u@ad-gentoo-main> <8495c9e0-269a-eb83-48d4-15af57adb5ca@gentoo.org> <20200406132427.yde3oxwqtrgwehec@ad-gentoo-main> <20200406161810.522yilumzsl6rvuc@matica> From: Grant Taylor Organization: TNet Consulting Message-ID: <02e3e0b8-01cb-28a6-4906-ff09d9b2c276@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:02:05 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3a80cdce-9b00-4729-812a-e906c9781abf X-Archives-Hash: ecbc54ea5d49236414b2d149ff1bbb6e On 4/6/20 1:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > More often than not, yes. The main exception I've seen are sites > that email you verification codes, such as some sorts of "two-factor" > implementations (whether these are really two-factor I'll set aside > for now). Many of these services will retry, but some just give up > after one attempt. I believe that's a perfect example of services that should send email through a local MTA that manages a queue and retries mail delivery. There is no need for this type of queuing logic and complexity to be in the application. Especially if the application is otherwise stateless and runs for the duration of a single HTTP request. -- Grant. . . . unix || die