[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Email System Model

2009-05-20 08:21:38

David MacQuigg wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I had hoped that a protocol for configuring forwarding would have smoothly lent itself to also configure secondary MXes

The model at is an administrative-level model, not a relay-level model. We are modeling Actors (Users and Agents) and their roles in an email system. Backup MXs are relays under the control of the Receiving Agent, even if they are actually subcontracted to a hosting service in another city.

It only makes sense to reserve a place for backup MXes in a model if such modeling is aimed at bettering the mail system, rather than merely describing how it currently does [not] work.

To add a Backup Agent to the model, I would need to see an example of how this might make a difference to any Actor interacting with the Receiving Agent. Yes, there are many problems with backup MXs not having current information on a sender's greylist status, not knowing when the primary MX is back in operation, etc., but how is that different than a Receiver Agent that simply fumbles its internal operations?

Externally administered backup MXes run into backscattering because they don't maintain a copy of the users database. To amend that status of affairs implies that a user's email address will also be stored at an externally controlled backup MX. Such situation should interest the users, as those addresses are part of their personally identifiable information. I say /should/ because the same is true for forwarding. In both cases, Actors should provide means for exercising their users' rights.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>