Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter
2009-01-27 05:40:49
Paul Smith wrote:
If they have SBS set up correctly then it should just work.
Under the 'current' way yes, but if it is changed so that the EHLO
parameter must correspond to the IP address of the sending host, then it
won't work, and I can't think of anything which would make it work.
May I ask how can that server receive any responses to the mail it
sends? I don't want to mean that ingoing and outgoing paths should be
symmetric, as in many cases asymmetric techniques can provide more
performance. However, I don't think that we want to encourage the
habit of flooding recipients with spam in such a way that no answer or
complaint can ever get back. That is to say, IMHO, boolean in and out
capabilities should be symmetric.
It would HAVE to go via a third party smarthost, many of these are
unreliable and/or slow, so people prefer not to use them if they can.
It is not possible to define a possible set up, until the 'next' HELO
parameter has a definitive wording. The general tendency is to use the
DNS for storing that information, i.e. operative records (A, MX) if at
all possible, declarative records (SPF, TXT) otherwise. Assuming that,
dynamic DNS is the only way, unless the dynamically assigned address
varies within a reasonably small pool that is established beforehand.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, (continued)
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, SM
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, SM
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter,
Alessandro Vesely <=
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Alessandro Vesely
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Paul Smith
- Re: RFC 5321bis / 2821ter, Hector Santos
|
|
|