[ On Thursday, October 23, 2003 at 16:15:59 (+0100), Tony Finch wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Refuse connection if no MX for sending host
>
> We are in full compliance with this paragraph.
Good. Lest your domain(s) end up in with postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org. :-)
> We do not support address
> literals despite the requirement in RFC1123; you might think this is
> evil bad and wrong, but I don't care.
Yes, it is very evil, bad, wrong, and also a huge disservice to the
community as a whole. Not supporting use of address literals is
tantamount to not supporting <postmaster>, and in some cases it's
exactly equivalent even.
> We do not support email delivery
> to arbitrary machines, and do not have to.
What does that have to do with anything!?!?!?!?
> > There _should_ always be an MX for every domain name that is a host name
> > of a mailer, and the target name of the MX should be the same domain
> > name:
>
> Where does it say that?
Before I answer that (because you're sure as heck not going to like the
answer!), let me ask you this:
Why the hell wouldn't you publish an MX for every mail server?!?!?!?!?
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
