nanog mailing list archives
Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:58:47 +0530
On Nov 21, 2007 5:46 PM, Eliot Lear <lear () cisco com> wrote:
Given what Sean wrote goes to the core of how mail is routed, you'd pretty much need to overhaul how MX records work to get around this one, or perhaps go back to try to resurrect something like a DNS MB record, but that presumes that the problem can't easily be solved in other ways. Sean demonstrated one such way (move the high volume stuff to its own domain).
Most mailservers do allow you to exempt specific addresses from filtering. srs
Current thread:
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net, (continued)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Leigh Porter (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 22)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Adrian Chadd (Nov 22)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 22)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Joel Jaeggli (Nov 26)
- RE: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Jamie Bowden (Nov 26)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Paul Jakma (Nov 22)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 21)