On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:29:51 +0200
Daniel Dorau <woodst@???> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 11:35:17AM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2000 22:06:04 +0200 Daniel Dorau
>> <woodst@???> wrote:
>>
>> > Is there a way to solve this? It is not necessary that the
>> errors > messages are sent back to the real user (I guess this
>> will not > work because the original sender is lost). I would be
>> ok if the > error messages would return to a local address like >
>> postmaster@??? .
>>
>> Been there done that.
>>
>> The easiest way to solve this is to get someone to smarthost for
>> you that will accept the original Sender addresses (and thus the
>> original envelope). In all probability your ISP will do this (it
>> easy enough to check) as they're normally configured to
>> discriminate on IP ranges, not envelopes. If not, you can often
>> find someone willing to smarthost for you if your traffic levels
>> are not too high (eg try who-ever is currently acting as your
>> secondary MX).
> This does not work for me because I have no permanent ISP.
In which case you fall back to someone else to smarthost for you.
If you have someone MXing for your domain, they might be willing to.
If not, ask about, particularly in your local Linux/Unix/BSD user's
groups mailing lists, and you'll likely find someone who is willing,
given reasonable mail loads (I did).
> I'm using call-by-call internet provider which do not relay mail.
> It's a simple IP dialup connection.
That really doesn't change anything. It just means that whoever
runs the smarthost is going to want to be a little more careful
about their relay security setups to prevent themselves becoming an
open relay for anyone pretening to be posting from your domain.
--
"Show me the way to go home" Home: claw@???
J C Lawrence Other: coder@???
----------(*) Keys etc: finger claw@???
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
