At 10:04 AM 03-27-2003, you wrote:
> diversion. in short: the original claim was baseless. No mailserver is
> broken for refusing messages from sites that have no in place.


"No mailserver is broken for refusing messages from sites run by [ethnic
"No mailserver is broken for refusing messages from sites with an even IP
"No mailserver is broken for refusing messages delievered by air-mail."

those are all true. the term in contention is "broken". obviously, if a mailserver is refusing messages from sites with "even IP addresses" (whatever those are, how is an IP address even or odd?) *and the reason for that refusal is not known*, then it's broken. If it's been purposely configured that way, it's not broken, regardless of how bizarre it may seem.

There is no guideline saying that servers MUST refuse mail from sites with no  Therefore your stance is on shaky ground -- you are going
above and beyond the relevant RFCs that the protocol relies on to achieve a
goal.  "Embrace and extend," anyone?

You don't mind rejecting mail based on lack of I do.

don't confuse me with the person who configured his mailserver that way. None of my mailservers - across three ISP currently - block mail based on lack of I'm merely defending the choice of someone to do so, and pointing out that making that choice does not inherently make the mailserver "broken".

cares?  When your customers come to you and say that they aren't getting mail
and you ask the other ISP to fix their problem and they won't, who's at
fault?  You are in this case, because you are going above and beyond what the
RFC dictates as minimum requirements.

actually, the fault becomes excruciatingly fuzzy at that point. does an administrator have a right to run his mailserver in a way that protects it from large amounts of spam? for that matter, what about spam filtering not based upon lookup that blocks messages inadvertently? no spam filter is 100% perfect, though some bayesian filters appear to be approaching that. what do you do when a customer runs a mailing list where they share with friends particularly funny examples of spam? the messages contain spam, but aren't spam themselves - yet virtually every spam filter out there would block them.

there are no black & white answers in this area.

There is nothing stating you can't have a nameserver without a valid reverse
lookup, and if you are expecting the world to follow you, you have delusions
of grandeur.

who's talking about for nameservers?

  Whether that is acceptable to you or not is your (and your
customer's) worry, not mine.  I am under no obligation to correct my
"mistake" simply because you don't like it and have configured your servers
not to like it.

and likewise, i hope you realize.


Paul Theodoropoulos
The Nicest Misanthrope on the Net

Reply via email to