nanog mailing list archives
Re: Mailserver requirements
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy () knowtion net>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:12:44 +0100
Charles Sprickman wrote:
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...
A simple one would be that my outbound relays have queue and retry schedules different to my inbound SMTP listeners, which may more simply be configured for checking for SPAM etc. Also SMTP authentication for customers relaying may only be enabled on my outbound relays. Peter
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)
- Re: Mailserver requirements Jeff Workman (Apr 05)