From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jun 25 7:39:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from loki.intrepid.net (intrepid.net [204.71.127.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA12114EE5 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:39:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@loki.intrepid.net) Received: (from mark@localhost) by loki.intrepid.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA01814; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:39:11 -0400 Message-ID: <19990625103911.D14126@intrepid.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:39:11 -0400 From: Mark Conway Wirt To: "Mike Avery (on the road)" , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why not uucp, instead of smtp and static ip? References: <19990624195332.F1893@daemon.ninth-circle.org>; <19990625085803.A14126@intrepid.net> <27FC8C472BE@mail.otherwhen.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <27FC8C472BE@mail.otherwhen.com>; from Mike Avery (on the road) on Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 08:39:19AM -0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 08:39:19AM -0000, Mike Avery (on the road) wrote: > > If someone is running Exchange, Lotus Notes, Groupwise, > Sendmail, or even Mercury, they are trying to run their own email > services. And it would seem to be easiest if they have a fixed IP > address. > > Even if you can remap the IP address for mail.mycustomer.com in > DNS on the fly, the changes will take a while to propogate.... it > seems better to give these people a static IP, even if it is a pain. > > Or - do you have a better solution? Something like UUCP is a better solution. I can run the primary (and only) MX for the domain and spool it up via UUCP. [UUCP over TCP is the way to go, BTW]. Why is this better?: 1) No need for static addresses. 2) No potentially confusing "Unable to deliver..." messages if the customer doesn't retrieve their mail for a long time. --Mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message