Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:59:36 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: blocked mail Message-ID: <3C7AEC08.223E422C@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0202251413410.25937-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <3C7AC400.B8F3E9FC@mindspring.com> <20020225174520.L47910@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"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 <user@domain>" > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C7AEC08.223E422C>