From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jun 24 13: 3:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from sinope.eclipse.net.uk (sinope.eclipse.net.uk [195.188.32.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B571814C2F for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:03:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stuart@eclipse.net.uk) Received: from eclipse.net.uk (elara.eclipse.net.uk [195.188.32.31]) by sinope.eclipse.net.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22432; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:02:36 +0100 Message-ID: <37728EE3.32F43F2F@eclipse.net.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:02:43 +0100 From: Stuart Henderson Organization: Eclipse Networking Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en-GB MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leif Neland , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why not uucp, instead of smtp and static ip? References: <00c901bebe64$f5267d60$0e00a8c0@neland.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I just wonder, when holding mail for a domain, which picks it > up by dialin and doing smtp/etrn, one almost is forced to issue > static ip's. Unless you can keep tables of who is online and which IP address they have up to date, presumably based on radius authentication requests, and use a mailer which can look at a dynamic source for map lookups (maybe sql or dbm - I think ldap is too heavyweight at db writes to be particularly good here). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message