[156035] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Taylor)
Tue Sep 4 16:43:20 2012
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:34:43 -0500
From: Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <29088432.23124.1346774707888.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
If you are sending direct SMTP on behalf of your domain from essentially
random locations, how are we supposed to pick you out from spammers that
do the same?
Use your MX or SPF senders as your outbound mail agent, especially if
they are properly configured with full DNS records so we can tell they
are the correct machines to be sending on your behalf, or expect that
you will get more mail bounced and lost than the average user because
you are being unpredictable and unverifiable.
On 09/04/2012 11:05 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Peach" <john-nanog@johnpeach.com>
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
>> Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>>> SMTP Auth to *arbitrary remote domains' MX servers*? Am I missing
>>> something,
>>> or are you?
>> I run an MTA on my server and auth to that from laptops and other
>> clients. Relaying allowed for authorised users.
> So, in other words, it's ok to rant and stomp our feet about the end-to-end
> architecture and how critical it is to support in order to diss NAT, but
> we're required to ignore it when discussing SMTP?
>
> I'm not sure I'm following, there.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
--
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc
dtaylor@vocalabs.com 952-941-6580x203
