On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:40:19PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1153 +0200]:
>> DULs are considered stupid, you might as well just deny mail from >> 0.0.0.0/0. > I disagree. These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail > server with proper queuing. That does not mean they can protect it > against relaying. I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone > should run a mail spool on a dial-up. Because the recipient's MX might be off-line, or otherwise unable / unwilling to take the message right now. I *really* want my computer to try again later in this case, not force me to do it manually. Thus my computer to have a mail spool. > It's dangerous to others. The only reason is because they consider > themselves too good to spool via their providers. No, it is because I don't know any provider that will let me look at their mail spool, change retry times for messages in the spool, etc. If the mail cannot be delivered for a longer time, but always for "temporary reasons" (4xx SMTP return codes, for example), get informed only after SEVERAL DAYS. That's unacceptable. I lose control of my mail if I hand it over to another spool. Plus, it gives my provider an easier path into snooping my mail. With direct-MX delivery, there is a least a chance that the SMTP session will be TLS-encrypted. My provider would have to mount an _active_ attack (vs passive) to snoop on that mail. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
