Sandip Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thursday 29 Jul 2004 9:06 am, Jasmeet wrote: > > > I think the only drawback of Direct-to-mx mailing is that reverse DNS [..] > to pour in. > > - Sandip > >
I understand the concept of spamming via direct to mx mailing, but what i wanted to point out was that for an end user, you fail (using ISP OR any III party SMTP server) in case the opposite domain runs a reverse DNS on you. My point wasn't related to the original post, I was just trying to figure out the drawbacks of using some other SMTP server other than justifiably your own (the one indicated by your MX record). Yeah, i think it was everybody's dream that each SMTP server be able to relay for everybody, but then we had spam. And it would be a better idea to stick to your own (MX) servers for relaying your mail. If this were strictly followed along with reverse DNS lookup, there'd be less spamming (not perfecty zero though). This, along with what you mentioned about the SMTP server being able to detect bulk mailings, we could achieve good sterilisation. Though this may not always be possible, logistics or otherwise, then, as "Mary" pointed out in another thread (or was it this thread), the use of spf records. They would surely be a good step in fighting spam. Also, i feel every self respecting SMTP server should run a reverse DNS and make use of RBL lists till there is definitive way to fight spam. -js _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
