Mailserver requirements

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Tue Apr 6 01:16:45 UTC 2004


On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:03:58 -0400 Jeff Workman <jworkman at pimpworks.org> wrote:




> --On Monday, April 05, 2004 5:48 PM -0400 Richard Welty 
> <rwelty at 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 at averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
    Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security




More information about the NANOG mailing list