Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:09:49 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: blocked mail Message-ID: <p0510140eb8a100fddb40@[10.0.1.18]> In-Reply-To: <20020225174520.L47910@over-yonder.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0202251413410.25937-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <3C7AC400.B8F3E9FC@mindspring.com> <20020225174520.L47910@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 5:45 PM -0600 2002/02/25, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: >> In addition, the MX requirement is often that the sending >> host be in the MX list for the "MAIL FROM <user@domain>" >> domain part, or the mail will be refused as a suspicious >> relay. > > That can't be right. Incoming MX servers, and outgoing sendmail servers, > are often different. Remember, the check is done at the domain level, if at all. > Of course, it IS a SHOULD, not a MUST, but still... > > RFC821 doesn't seem to have anything to say about MX records and their > utilization, it just defines the SMTP standard itself. I checked RFC 1123, and while there are a number of references to MX records, etc... I couldn't find anything about falling back to pure IP addresses if there are no MX records. It makes sense that this would come from RFC 974, however. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Do you hate Microsoft? Do you hate Outlook? Then visit the Anti-Outlook page at <http://www.rodos.net/outlook/>; and see how much fun you can have. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510140eb8a100fddb40>