From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 24 02:25:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA19260 for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 02:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA19255 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 02:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA11428; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 02:23:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Jonathan Mini cc: Drew Derbyshire , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:24:46 PDT." <19970724002446.59369@micron.efn.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 02:23:48 -0700 Message-ID: <11424.869736228@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > What I'm saying is that my hostname doesn't have a DNS entry in the "outside > world" and therefore sending a message from my machine is automatically an Which you simply need to fix. If you are in a situation where your hostname is entirely ficticious then set some other machine as your mail relay and do what most BigCorps do when they have legions of machines they'd rather not expose directly and 2 or 3 mail servers which collect and send out mail on their behalf. This problem _has_ been solved, and most ISPs also have a mail host for their customers which allows this kind of relaying. :-) > I'm just a little annoyed at people who insist of having the sending machine > call itself a valid hostname, just to cut down on spam. Better get used to it - it's one of the single best ways of filtering out The Bogus Ones who would flood our mailboxes with adverts for teen sex and tax evasion kits, and I've been discussing the idea of turning this on for freebsd.org with our postmaster for some time now. To sum it up: The problem of spammers using bogus names to hide behind is a far, far greater problem than not being able to send mail to those comparatively few individuals without valid hostnames, so using the "99.9% vs .1%" value rule, you simply lose. :-) Jordan