Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:03:19 +0100 From: Mij <mij@bitchx.it> To: hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mx vs ns Message-ID: <388DDF60-4BA5-11D8-BC11-000A95CCF092@bitchx.it> In-Reply-To: <20040120234325.GA32173@isnic.is> References: <93570F3C-4B56-11D8-9538-000A95CCF092@bitchx.it> <20040120153117.GL86062@isnic.is> <C16A59A6-4B77-11D8-BB67-000A95CCF092@bitchx.it> <20040120193754.GC27983@isnic.is> <8145AD6A-4BA1-11D8-BC11-000A95CCF092@bitchx.it> <20040120234325.GA32173@isnic.is>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Il giorno 21/gen/04, alle 00:43, Olafur Osvaldsson ha scritto: i don't think this will wash us upon interesting thing. You're free to answer this mail, but i'm not going to keep on this topic; I feel it's time thrown away for both us. > So everything you get with donation and cooperation should be trusted? > I disagree. If I get an UltraSparc from Sun as gift and I'm free to make whatever I want with it, then yes, I trust it. Surely more than if i'm a big company that must choose between buying another connection in another continent or asking a concurrent isp if it likes to swap backup-mx service. If otherwise you're talking about who give you connectivity... well, you know internet. Even mx1 passes its routers. > If the secondary doesn't run any IP based filters and the master trusts > the secondary then it is a sure way to beat the filters. as said, ip-based smtp rejection is rare on public mxs. Of course the master can behave this way. It is really difficult to me to believe it does, but if it does then yes, you're right it will be a boring job to implement this. > Anyways, you have your reasons, I have mine...now can we go on with our > lives, ok, we agree. > I don't see anyone agreeing with you on hubs. yes. I don't see ~any domain on internet agreeing with you, at the same time. friendly. bye
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?388DDF60-4BA5-11D8-BC11-000A95CCF092>