On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:06:32PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:41:12 +0000, Julian Yon wrote: > ... > > or dedicated server, or colocate a machine of your own in a datacentre. > > While in theory you could run a server off a cable or DSL line, I > > wouldn't recommend it. Even if your ISP is friendly towards the idea > > they're unlikely to guarantee you the uptime you need for a reliable > > service. > > Don't think that regular colo/VPS server promise much more. The main > problem on cable/DSL is the usual lack of an actually fixed address. Keep in mind that colo/rent-a-server and cable/DSL at home aren't the only possibilities; I run my own mail server on a machine located in my home and have done so since about 2000 - since 2005 it's been on a T1 circuit with a 99.99% SLA, which has worked flawlessly, and before that it was variously on ADSL with static IP and dorm-room ethernet back before filtering such things got very common. With consumer-targeted internet service dynamic addresses can be a problem, but IIRC it's usually possible to get a static one or use dynamic DNS. Port-filtering and weird traffic shaping is the real problem; I've been refusing to deal with such and insisting on spending for the T1 ever since an unpleasant encounter with an ISP that blocked outgoing TCP port 22. > > Never mind that it'll be your home the police are sniffing > > around if you're doing anything illegal with it. > > ... > > at your server. If you only have the one server, then you'll only need > > one record, but if your server is down or unreachable then other > > servers will probably either bounce or blackhole incoming mail. > > Servers doing the former deserve to be walked away from (to another > provider), and admins of servers doing the latter are criminals, > at least in my local jurisdiction. *boggle* criminal prosecutions for one's mail server configuration? Remind me to stay well clear of your jurisdiction. > > They're under no obligation to queue it for you. > > Yes, they are. At least that is what every sane mail server does. > (Given the insane state of the world this doesn't say much.) > > [Actually, the server whose obligation to queue in case my MX is down > is being paid for by the person sending the mail.] In practice, on the few downtime events I have had with power outages or machine problems and such, I've mostly not had problems with servers not queueing and resending, but I have seen some mailing lists give up on delivering to my account and had to unsub/resub. > Well yes; I still like my mail directly appear in my inbox (even though > I admin that I need to poll this address). > > Andreas Yes, local mail spool is nice, and so is being able to just write one's own .procmailrc. -- Andrea Shepard <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> PGP fingerprint: 3611 95A4 0740 ED1B 7EA5 DF7E 4191 13D9 D0CF BDA5
Attachment:
pgpPp5ZeOva1h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk