Hey Edward,
I'm not seeing any real RFC violations in those links. Spamcop claims
that MS isn't following the RFC, but I believe that is a false claim. I
don't believe there's anything in an RFC about how headers are *displayed*.
I also googled it, and came up with nothing. I don't believe that any of
the big mailers are in violation of any RFCs pertaining to email. That's
not to say that they haven't implemented non-standard methods to
mitigate spam.
My point here is that your requirement is not a matter of RFC
compliance. There is nothing in an RFC that says such. It may be a
requirement for isolation and for your clients, but it is not a
requirement for RFC compliance.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
On 10/28/2010 11:42 AM, Edward Finlayson wrote:
Hi Eric,
Please check out the following urls, hotmail for example simultaneously
choose to treat the RFCs a standards and guidelines and simply cherry pick
the ones they like:
http://mail.live.com/mail/policies.aspx
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/22.html
Also it is common knowledge that Yahoo flout the RFCs in so much as the
'spam avoidance' techniques are concerned. Simply Google it.
Your final point, there can only be one primary domain: quite true, a
Primary domain Per IP Address... really the point is moot.
As I said before, I need to support multiple email domains FULLY WITHIN THE
RFC on a single machine. To that end I am simply going to install multiple
smtpd Daemons, job done.
Thanks for the input however, it was interesting.
Fin
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Shubert [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 28 October 2010 19:13
To: [email protected]
Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re: smtp greeting banner frustration
You say you have a "requirement to be able to prove isolation of
domains". That's a pretty broad term, meaning what exactly? Is
"isolation of domains" defined anywhere? I think that using DNSStuff to
verify isolation is pretty lame, and I expect you'd agree. Depending on
how much isolation is really required, the use of virtual domains might
not be acceptable. This requirement appears to "fly in the face" of
virtual domains.
In order for any host to be able to do what you're saying in order to
pass the "DNSStuff test", there would (of course) need to be a mapping
of some sort defined between an interface and domain. How else would the
server know which name to use? There's no other bit of data (that I know
of) which could be used to tell which domain the message (with no
address yet identified) will be sent to. Some custom coding would be
required to accomplish this.
I think the best solution for your situation is to set up a QMT VM for
each domain with such (lame as they may be) requirements. And be sure to
charge a premium for such a configuration. ;)
Regarding RFCs, I disagree that they are 'guidelines'. I'd like to see
any official document from Hotmail, Yahoo, Google et al that says otherwise.
Also, you quote RFC2821 section 4.3.1:
> Note: all the greeting-type replies have the official name (the
> fully-qualified primary domain name) of the server host as the first word
> following the reply code. Sometimes the host will have no meaningful
name.
Notice that it says *primary* domain name. There can be only one
*primary* domain name, no?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group
(www.vickersconsulting.com)
Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations.
If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
