At 11:19 AM -0600 2002/08/27, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> Because I want to send mail through my own SMTP server that speaks
> STARTTLS and uses certificates that are under my control.
That's a valid concern. Indeed, that's exactly the sort of thing
I will want to be doing in the near future.
> Maybe I don't want my email sitting around in your MTA queue for
> your sysadmins to read.
Given the volumes of mail that pass through these kinds of
things, that's not likely to be a problem. More likely to be a
problem would be the fact that the mail might sit there for a week
before it gets retried a second time. That takes careful system
engineering for load, making sure to retry old messages often enough,
etc....
> Or maybe you just don't have a clue about how to configure and run
> an MTA, therefore any mail I send through your enforced gateway
> gets silently black-holed.
I have a clue how to configure and run an MTA. This is my
specialty. I still recommend setting up a transparent proxy for port
25, but if I set up a separate machine (or set of machines) for that
function, I will probably do the same as AOL and explicitly request
that this machine be on the MAPS RBL (and certain other blacklists).
So, yes. Most anything you send through that machine would
definitely be black-holed, at least if I set up a separate system to
handle that traffic.
> The Internet is a peer-to-peer network, whether you like it or not.
That's changing, whether you like it or not. For that matter,
whether I like it or not.
--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
