[51439] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Knowles)
Tue Aug 27 16:58:34 2002
In-Reply-To: <lyadn9ns0m.fsf@gfn.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:02:51 +0200
To: Scott Gifford <sgifford@suspectclass.com>,
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 7:02 PM -0400 2002/08/26, Scott Gifford wrote:
> The proposal suggests that you get all of the A records for all of the
> accepted names, then make sure that one of the A records matches the
> address that the connection came from. See sec. 2.3.
Right. And when they add a new mail gateway and don't tell you
about it? What if they have forty-five of the damn things, each with
its own unique name?
> Even if it did require good reverse DNS, that would only be needed for
> domains that chose to implement this, and only for addresses that
> are allowed to send mail from that domain.
So, if you can't send mail out directly, you pass it on up to
your ISP. And if they can't send the stuff directly, they pass it up
another level. And so on. And you have to know all the possible IP
addresses that could be used as exit points for your mail.
Yeesh. Ya know, even X.400 wasn't this silly.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
