<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> On 09/04/2010 11:31 PM,
Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson (first) wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimi+vSaABSATOWemF33jmj0vdeD=L1KZN_jnhr9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">2010/9/4 paxcoder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:paxcoder@gmail.com">paxcoder@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I
will not settle for using a service :-(</blockquote>
<div><br>
DNS is hierarchical, so at some point you will have to use a service if
you want to be reachable using standard tools. If you are OK with only
being reachable via. TOR or other such things, then you may be able to
avoid this... except TOR itself is a service, it's just not a centrally
administered one. And your ISP is a service provider too. <br>
<br>
Using a service is not a problem, the problems start when service
providers lock you in and degrade your freedom. If there is real,
functioning competition in the market (which is certainly the case for
DNS and dynamic DNS), then using these services poses no problem.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I was inaccurate, I don't want to use centralized services. If I can
utilize mechanisms of trust, I have no problem with such services that
- as you called it - have alternatives (ie are failsafe). That being
said, I'd be happier to have my own DNS, but if I'm getting you right,
I'll have to use third parties if I want delivery while I'm off-line.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimi+vSaABSATOWemF33jmj0vdeD=L1KZN_jnhr9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">But
I
thought you'd get a "Mail delivery subsystem" message saying 'can't
deliver' the moment you send it. Are you saying it's not so, and if
yes, how did I miss it?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Not sure how you missed it! You'll have to tell us! :-)<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You answer our [;-)] question here:<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimi+vSaABSATOWemF33jmj0vdeD=L1KZN_jnhr9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Different mail servers behave in different ways.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps I just underestimated the wait time before delivery, and
assumed it returns quickly. Considering that you talk about max. a day
of delay (which is plenty), it doesn't seem like much of a problem. If
what you said is standard practice, I'd probably have no need for
alternative mailboxes. However, one of the goals of FB is mobility, so
we could still provide this.<br>
<br>
Anyway, thanks for answering.<br>
--Luka Marčetić<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>