From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Feb 25 18: 0:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946A337B41A for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool0319.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.64] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16fWuC-0003tb-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:59:49 -0800 Message-ID: <3C7AEC08.223E422C@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:59:36 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matthew D. Fuller" Cc: "Jeremy C. Reed" , FreeBSD Chat Subject: Re: blocked mail References: <3C7AC400.B8F3E9FC@mindspring.com> <20020225174520.L47910@over-yonder.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: > Terry Lambert, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > In addition, the MX requirement is often that the sending > > host be in the MX list for the "MAIL FROM " > > 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. Nevertheless, it's a common rule, and it used to be the default (it's called relay for MX) until the latest sendmail import; did you read Greg Shapiro's announcement on the changes? > > Probably he meant the pre-RFC2821 standard, which is what > > most mail servers on the In ternet still conform to today, > > and probably will for a very long time (may Jon Postel's > > name live forever). > > Now wait just a minute! You're not allowed to support me after I've > backed down from a position! :-p If a behaviour is not prohibited, it's allowed; if it's not mandated, then it is not required. Violates POLA, in that it fails to "be lenient in what you accept", but really, we're not talking protocol here. The getpeername/gethostbyaddr/gethostbyname in-addr.arpa vs. domain registrar two authority concurrance crosscheck is common practice for anti-spam. There is, in fact, an internet draft on it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message