Quoth michael@??? on Tue, Jan 04, 2000:
> > What needs to be done is painful education of the lusers who make
> > MX records point to 127.0.0.1.
>
> I agree. Any idea how to educate cityweb.com?
Knives, guns, nukes... You choose.
> I complained about such
> MX entries for other domains before, but without any positive feedback.
You can deny all mail from them until they fix it.
> Is there any reason for Exim not to ignore MX records that map to
> 127.0.0.1? Doing so would cause queueing all mail at the backup MX or
> bounce it right away, if there is no backup MX.
This is up to Philip, but I will describe my opinion on the
matter anyway. Exim goes long ways to ensure that every broken
piece of crap sent to the Network by shitty products and every
stupid misconfiguration made by damned lusers who for some
completely ununderstandable reason think they are sysadmins is
handled and the problematic mail message gets delivered where it
it meant to be delivered by users of borken products and
networks.
I'm not sure that a product must handle every screwed up piece of
data it receives. Minor common mistakes are OK, and if your
party is bored and feels like forgiving people's mistakes, it may
forgive your mistakes, but if you screwed up, you screwed up.
Shit happens. Programmers who implement protocols and system
administrators who connect their machines to public networks
should be responsible for what they do.
Vadik.
--
If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when
was the last time you needed one?
-- Tom Cargill, C++ Journal, Fall 1990.
