Re: [Nmh-workers] Stanford disliking my emails -- update + question

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Robert Elz on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:30:10 +0700:

> If gmail is predicting that Bob was going to receive a copy because of
> the address in  the To/Cc headers, then  it is wildly broken  - by the
> time SMTP gets involved, those are  no more than comments (as Ken said
> in an earlier  message, I have unusual levels of  control over my mail
> system - it is not without precedent  for me to delete delivery to one
> recipient before  the message leaves my  MTA - but they  will still be
> listed in the header fields).

This is a  better observation, however, I still believe  that Gmail does
duplicate removal, so I hereby revise my statement.

Both Gmail  and the list server  are ``removing duplicates'' and  so the
only  copy that  Bob  was allowed  to receive  was  the delayed  message
(because the MLM failed to deliver a  message to him) and there was a 33
hour delay due to other factors in the direct delivery.

It's unlikely  that Gmail  would have ``waited''  for the  directly sent
message knowing that  it would eventually arrive based  on past analysis
of email delivery patterns to Bob's mailbox.

It's highly likely that the MLM is deciding not to deliver a copy to Bob
because he's  also subscribed. I  think this behavior is  wrong, because
just as Gmail cannot predict that the MLM address will eventually arrive
in  Bob's  mailbox,  the  MLM  also cannot  predict  that  the  directly
addressed email will  ever arrive in Bob's mailbox.  Therefore, the most
sensible thing for an MLM to do is just to send the message.

If this  is true, you  will not  receive two copies  of this email  I am
sending to you since the MLM will not deliver a copy of it to you. Also,
I did not  receive a copy via MLM  of this email that you sent  to me to
which  I am  replying,  which seems  to  also confirm  that  the MLM  is
deciding  not to  send a  copy  where the  To  or Cc  also includes  the
targeted recipient.

> His concern  was the delay  - he'd seen replies  to a message  that he
> didn't receive  for days (and if  I'd noticed the holdup,  and dropped
> that copy of  the message - expecting him to  receive, or have already
> received, a copy via the list - might never have seen).

I see. The concern was the delay (which at the time probably looked like
100% delivery failure),  not the duplicate removal.  Personally, I don't
mind delay---SMTP was designed  for reliable delivery, not instantaneous
delivery. On the  other hand, a mail system  that ``removes duplicates''
seems to break the reliability of the system.

Thanks,

Andy
-- 
TAI64 timestamp: 40000000553ad870