From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jul 24 15:40:32 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA29131
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com [206.14.52.27])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA29126
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jas@localhost)
	by biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA14165;
	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com>
Message-Id: <199707242238.PAA14165@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com>
To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM, terry@lambert.org
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I have to warn you that several mail server products of which I'm
> aware actualy verify via getpeername/gethostbyaddr (RARP), and
> will reject your host anyway.

RARP?  Or was that just a belch in mid-sentence :-)?

Seems like it would be nice for those implementing such a policy to
allow chopping of subdomain prefixes; e.g., if getpeername/gethostbyaddr
return foo.bar.acme.com, and the envelope sender is joebob@acme.com,
then it's OK.  Or is that too loose?

Hmm; pretty far afield for -current.  I'll shut up now.

Jim Shankland
Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc.