Re: [Exim] Relaying at ISP SMTP - ANSWERED

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 00:59:56 +0000, MBM wrote:
>> yep, TCP has nothing to do with this.

>I didn't say it had anything to do with Paul's problem. My comment was that
>you can decide during the port 25 TCP handshake whether or not you are
>going to allow relaying, because you may have entirely IP address based
>relay rules. It would generally not be sensible to do any kind of check
>until you actually decide whether something is a "relay" or a "local
>delivery" of some sort.

ok, i'll go along with that. i didn't realize that this was what you
were getting at. my brain is fogged up from fighting with DNS and with
fiberglas insulation all afternoon and evening

>The acronym IRMTA => I reply merely to annoy, should really have given this
>away.

it would have if i knew that one.

>I'm not convinced that dynamic allocation of smarthosts is a particularly
>good idea, though web proxies would be a nice thing to be able to
>automatically allocate. I can certainly see a DHCP field for smarthosts
>being used by people for opportunistic mail abuse.

there are lots of issues with the zero configuration efforts, and
they've had an enormous amount of trouble getting started. i think
that it's possible to get dynamic assignment of smart hosts in some
non-standard M$ extensions to DHCP, but it's fairly irrelevant to the
subject matter of this list.

just as an obscure bit of trivia, the 169.blah.blah.blah IP address
that the M$ IP stack uses when a DHCP lookup fails is from one of the
defunct zeroconf drafts.

cheers,
richard