NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/nz/comp/355

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 2.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!zl2tnm!toyunix!don
Newsgroups: nz.comp
Subject: Re: interNet via modem
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Don Stokes)
Date: 31 Dec 92 08:24:49 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (GNEWS Version 2.0 news poster.)
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: The Wolery
Lines: 47

[e-mail] (Andy Linton) writes:
> [e-mail] (earthbound misfit, I) writes:
> |> You could use POP, which appears to be receiving enthusiastic support (if
> |> the whizzy client I'm using on a PC at work is an indication). The problem
> |> it does cause of course is that your server then has to provide spool space
> |> for my mail until I bother to call and grab it.
>
> Of course, the sendmail daemon that was acting as a secondary MX for the
> SLIP/PPP connected site would be doing that anyway! It's an easily solvable
> problem. The downstream site talks to an "I'm here again, please run the
> sendmail queue while I'm connected" server.
>
> I don't think POP is the answer in this case unless there is only a limited
> number of recipients at the downstream site.

POP is ideal for a single personal computer making on-demand IP connections --
in fact that's precisely what happens with ethernet-connected personal
computers using POP clients to retrieve mail.  Whether you use ethernet or
SLIP for getting mail from a POP server is entirely irrelevant.  And yes,
there are some really nice POP clients out there, at the best possible
prices.  8-)

POP is not however suited to a multiuser situation.  Andy & I discussed
how to go about dealling with this case, and he came up with the idea
that the calling system, on making the connection, should prod the machine
handling the secondary MX (ie the "fall back" machine if the primary
address isn't reachable) and tell it to have another go at sending any
queued mail.  This seems to me quite a clean solution, assuming the
machine handling the secondary MX knows how to run its mailer for a
particular site only -- not a problem on Comp Sci's machines, which was
what we were discussing -- and that the site is prepared to set this up.

However, my point is that the machine handling the secondary MX is going
to be handling mail more often than not, and the admins of that machine
are going to want MONEY for using their spool space.  The same applies
to POP servers, uucp or whatever.  It's not as simple as just bunging a
machine on the net and letting folk throw mail at it.

I for one would _not_ support any effort to provide IP connectivity (dialup
or otherwise) without some way of reaching the user by email.  As a minimum,
postmaster@site should be a valid address to anyone appearing on the net
in any form.

--
Don Stokes, ZL2TNM (DS555)                        [e-mail] (home)
Network Manager, Computing Services Centre            [e-mail] (work)
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand              [phone]