[Top] [All Lists]

Re: request discussion of two documents on SMTP relaying

2005-06-20 12:08:51

Keith,  I didn't think it was necessary but this is just to make sure the
following specific comment of yours is not left uncooked as one person seem
to believe that the implementation did not consider your comment here.  See

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com>

The only new concept added to our SMTP server is that the Return Path
FROM) must be verifiable - spoofed or otherwise - it must not be junk
and it
must reflect a valid MX host  - zombie or otherwise.

Not that this is relevant to either of the documents under discussion,
but it's not consistent with current standards to require that there be
an MX record for the domain portion of the MAIL FROM address.  It is
still valid to have only an A record for that address, or for that
matter, only a AAAA record for that address (though in the latter case
the address isn't likely to get much mail for awhile).

That's correct.  With the exception with shorter timeouts on responses, the
CBV is otherwise a full 100% SMTP client with MX and NO MX considerations.
This has not been an issue as most systems are not going to throttle
responses for more than 1 minute.   And if they do, it has been shown that
they are mostly zombie sites attempting to thwart CBV systems.

Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>