Yahoo Mail Update
ross at dillio.net
Sun Apr 13 20:55:13 UTC 2008
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:58:59AM -0500, Ross wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> > > I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon)
> > > mail system personnel should be actively participating here, on mailop,
> > > on spam-l, etc. A lot of problems could be solved (and some avoided)
> > > with some interaction.
> > Why should large companies participate here about mail issues? Last I
> > checked this wasn't the mailing list for these issues:
> It's got nothing to do with size ("large"); Joe's ISP in Podunk should
> be on this lists as well. And one of the reasons I suggested multiple
> lists is that each has its own focus, so those involved with the care
> and feeding of mail systems should probably be on a number of them,
> in order to interact with something approximating the right set of peers
> at other operations. (Of course not all lists are appropriate for all
Again I disagree with the principle that this list should be used for
mail operation issues but maybe I'm just in the wrong here. Maybe this
list is intended for everything internet related, if so I have some
complaints I'd like to post about slow download speeds at my current
isp. I think maybe there should be a better mission statement to
clarify what it is intended for.
Again large companies don't need to participate here. They have the
user base so you either have to deal with them or block them. Then you
have the business decisions of who is going to be more unhappy, their
users who can't reach 10k in email accounts or your user base who
can't reach 50 million in email accounts. This is the cost of doing
business and yes it sucks at times but these choices you have to make
as an operator.
The businesses that do participate here and on other lists should be
commended but it isn't an operational necessity for their business.
> > But lets just say for a second this is the place to discuss company
> > xys's mail issue. What benefit do they have participating here? Likely
> > they'll be hounded by people who have some disdain for their company
> > and no matter what they do they will still be evil or wrong in some way.
> They're more likely to be hounded by people who have disdain for their
> incompetence and the resulting operational issues they impose on their peers.
> But if they're reluctant to face the unhappiness of their peers -- those
> whose networks, systems and users are abused on a daily basis and who thus
> have ample reason to be unhappy -- then maybe they should try something
> different, such as "doing their jobs properly".
I'll say it again, it is easy to tell someone who has a much larger
economy of scale how to do their job properly when you are the small
fish in the pond. These guys have a lot of politics in their jobs to
deal with so where you may be the sole shot caller in your
organization they may have to work through the layers in their
organization. I fully believe we could work out some of the
operational inefficiencies if I were the only person making decisions
but I'm not and that is the reality of big business.
> > It is easy for someone who has 10,000 users to tell someone who has 50
> > million users what to do when they don't have to work with such a
> > large scale enterprise.
> This is mythology. Someone who can *competently* run a 10,000 user
> operation will have little-to-no difficulty running a 50 million user
> operation. (In some ways, the latter is considerably easier.) It's
> not a matter of the size of anyone's operation, it's a matter of how
> well it's run, which in turn speaks to the knowledge, experience,
> diligence, etc. of those running it.
If you say so, I find this comment pretty darn humorous saying
10k users should be easily scalable to 50 million.
*sending to list this time
ross [at] dillio.net
More information about the NANOG