←back to thread

Why email startups fail

(forwardemail.net)
140 points skeptrune | 1 comments | 01 Jul 25 00:41 UTC | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
JimDabell ◴[01 Jul 25 02:41 UTC] No.44430078[source]▶
This is a weird article. Email is a hodgepodge of terrible protocols that have progressively had more and more technical debt laid upon them for decades and decades. Vendor quirks are everywhere, and it’s incredibly unreliable. Its defining quality – it’s decentralisation – has been beaten out of it by IP reputation so everybody ends up sending through a handful of providers.

The article kinda acknowledges that it’s a shitheap that’s awful to implement, but somehow still champions the idea that it all works fine.

And what’s with the repeated jabs at the “terrible” exit rate that actually seems pretty good?

replies(4): >>44430399 #>>44430787 #>>44430987 #>>44431068 #
1. delusional ◴[01 Jul 25 05:13 UTC] No.44430787[source]▶
> and it’s incredibly unreliable

I will never understand where this sentiment comes from. I've run my own mail server for like 7 years at that point. It's so incredibly rare for my mail to not deliver that I can't remember the last time I had to debug it. The most annoying thing I've had to deal with was dovecot breaking compatibility with their config format, but even that was a couple of hours of work to get back on track.

My most surprising experience was when I broke the mail setup while migrating servers once. Postfix was down for something like 7 days before I got around to fixing it. The cool thing was what happened after I fixed it. While my server was down, the other relays had been dutifully holding onto my mail, waiting for me to once again accept it. So after a week of downtime, I still got all my mail within 24 hours after starting up my server again.

That's fucking reliable in my book.