[69317] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mailserver requirements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Welty)
Mon Apr 5 21:18:48 2004
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <428437680.1081195438@[192.168.1.206]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:03:58 -0400 Jeff Workman <jworkman@pimpworks.org> wrote:
> --On Monday, April 05, 2004 5:48 PM -0400 Richard Welty
> <rwelty@averillpark.net> wrote:
> > for that matter, if i were running a very very large mail farm with high
> > volume in one or both directions, separating the inbound mail handlers
> > (MX hosts) from the outbound mail relays would be something that i'd
> > seriously consider doing as part of the architecture. this would interact
> > very badly with the mail rejection strategy outlined in the original post
> > in this thread.
> While I think it's pretty anal-retentive to require a mail sender to have a
> valid MX record, I don't see what would be so hard about setting up MX
> records for this scenario:
<snip>
> Or am I missing something?
yes.
what's hard about it is getting every single mail server on the public
internet to suddenly be set up this way so that they can talk to one
single mail server with a "novel" policy.
ain't going to happen. false positive city.
cheers,
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
