minor list changes

[Doc Shipley]

Jay West wrote:
> MS wrote...
> 
>> I think this is totally unfair and unacceptable.  This means that if a 
>> mail
>> server is having even a slightest bit of downtime (hardware failure, 
>> scheduled
>> maintenance, whatever) that lasts more than 35 min, then all users of 
>> that
>> mail server lose their mail?!
> 
> 
> <Extreme rant mode>
> Anyone who runs a mail server in a serious capacity has no business 
> being down for extended periods of time (well, unless it's a HOBBY of 
> course).
> 
> One of the problems mail server admins face, are people who throw up 
> their own mailserver at home. You don't have gobs of bandwidth, you 
> don't have multiple backup servers, and you don't have diesel generators 
> and online UPS. If you don't, you have no business running a public 
> mailserver. Most of the time I see this it's because someone wants some 
> kinda juvenile bragging rights about "Ohhh I run a my own K00L server". 
> Geeze. I have seen a few people who do it for good reason, but, if you 
> run a mail server you need to be a good net citizen about it.
> 
> What does being a good net citizen admin entail? Well, for starters, it 
> means that you don't expect other mail servers to pick up YOUR SLACK.
> </Extreme rant mode>
> 
> Anyways.... as I said, once the subscriber list is cleaned up a bit, 
> I'll be more gracious about the timeout settings for people who run (or 
> have) unreliable servers.

   I wouldn't.  Anybody who has access to the skills and time to run a 
mail server most likely has access to a *Tah-Dah* backup server.  It's 
trivial if you have nameservice control of your domain.  If you don't, 
you shouldn't be running your own mail at all.

   A bunch of the *nix consultants I know run their own domains and 
their own mail, and we serve each other as backup servers.


	Doc