Inconvenient for you, perhaps, but I don't agree that it's stupid. It's a great way to weed out spam from spoofed invalid IPs.
-wes On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:05 PM Rodney W. Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: > While group replying to another PLUG message I got this bounce > message back. > > Excuse me, but why should any SMTP server care that it has no > route to my RFC1918 pre-natted address as recorded in headers? > > That is stupidity to its maximus. > > I know I am leaking a rfc1918 address in my dns, but that should > not cause any smtp server to reject my mial, as I also am advertising > a valid address: > > host gndrsh.dnsmgr.net > gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has address 192.168.114.38 > gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has address 65.75.216.6 > gndrsh.dnsmgr.net mail is handled by 10 gndrsh.dnsmgr.net. > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <[email protected]> > (reason: 550 5.7.1 <[email protected]>: Sender address > rejected: No route to your RFC 1918 network.) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to mail.appl-ecosys.com.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550 5.7.1 <[email protected]>: Sender address rejected: No > route to your RFC 1918 network. > 550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown > <<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients > > -- > Rod Grimes > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
