nanog mailing list archives
Re: Mailserver requirements
From: Charles Sprickman <spork () inch com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Arnold Nipper wrote:
Today I run across a MTA which refused to accept mail because it could not detect an MX record for the reverse mapping of the IP address of the server which tried to deliver mail. Is this correct?
Not if you want to get mail, no. :)
Or: if A is the IP Address of server trying to deliver mail, does mx(reverse(A)) have to exist?
This is yet another misguided effort to semi-telepathically tell if a sender is "suspicious". Personally, I see nothing odd about a largish operation having one set of servers accepting mail and another set exclusively acting as smtp relays for customer mail. People that choose to do the "does it have an mx check" are hopefully blocking some really large amount of legit mail with the spam, as I can think of dozens of reasons why someone might wish to have their inbound mxers seperate from their outbound relays... Charles
-- Arnold
Current thread:
- Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Niels Bakker (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Charles Sprickman (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Peter Galbavy (Apr 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Mailserver requirements Mike Walter (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Daniel Roesen (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Daniel Roesen (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Jim Segrave (Apr 06)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Arnold Nipper (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Richard Welty (Apr 05)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Niels Bakker (Apr 05)
