At 12:14 PM 3/27/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>Roeland
>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer"
>writes:
>
>> Aw come-on doc. There is nothing illegal about it. There is no way, in a
>> free society, that this can ever be illegal.
>
>Why is this list full of people who negate the facts of life?
I wonder the same thing myself. Doing something illegal is, by definition,
something you could do jail-time for. Using an alternate TLD is NOT
illegal. If you want to do something illegal, go rob a bank.
>> I, for one, have no problems sending to the LIST TLD.
>
>Personally, I could not care less whether you can stand on your head
>or can send mail to .ZOO, .WEB, .LIST.
>
>They are not in the root. Repat after me: They are not in the root!
>And if you didn't get it, THEY ARE NOT IN THE ROOT!!!
Yes, and your point is ... ?
>The name has nothing to do with it.
Now I'm *really* mystified, what *is* your point?
>> As regards the error message (a bit more serious, I agree), I
>> believe that sendmail can be configured to re-route to a smart-relay
>> hub. I don't know about postfix (your mailer). The problem is
>> finding a hub that a) knows about the TLD, and b) will let you relay
>> through it. Alternatively, you can carry the zone files
>> yourself. The problem wrt b) is that the spammers have pretty much
>> caused relaying to be a four-letter word equivalent. So, finding b)
>> is actually harder than finding a).
>
>Roeland, it is evident that you have no idea what you are talking about.
>But then this is the DNS list, who has?
Show me where I am inaccurate. If I allowed relaying on the MHSC servers
you could gateway the mail through me, unfortunately I don't. I'm not sure
if Richard allows relaying.
BTW, until it was abused, the IEEE ran the gateway for the FTN domain. Too
many mail-bombs got tossed through it. Randy Bush and Tim Pozar each ran
one for a while as well. As a matter of fact, a TLD is a handy way to keep
a list of gateways synch'd among many systems, then there is UUCP ....
There is plenty of precedent for this.
>In case your attention span is short: They are not in the root!
Yeah ... so ..... ?
>I could not give a flying lewd act about smart hosts and relays and
>all.
>
>The problem is NOT a) and b) as above.
>
>The problem is that *I* make that choice, NOT them.
Are you saying that you think you have the right to tell me what I can run
on my servers? I dare not think so. But, please clarify.
>Nevermind that a) and b) have nothing to do with the problem at hand
>actually. The solution to avoid ths problem is trivial, by the way
>
>My MTA will not resolve it. It doesn't have to. No RFC requires me to
>have to misconfigure my properly configured software, they must
>configure their misconfigured software properly.
You don't seem to realize that, by this same argument, I don't have to
resolve NA either. Whether it is in the roots, or not, is irrelevant.
>I really don't mind ORSC's cuckoo land, they can send me mail from the
>.MOON as much as I care, as long as they respond properly to the MTA's
>rejection.
I'm running standard sendmail, if you want to reject, then by all means do
so. If your MTA doesn't then it is not my problem. sendmail works properly.
It also doesn't care what TLD I tell it to listen to.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
