Okay guys, I think we are getting off topic. I asked a simple question when
I started this thread. I never intended to start a religious war on the
list. I have come to the conclusion that even though the RFC says what it
says, not everybody is going to follow it, and not everybody is going to
dis-regard it and make their own standards in the same way either.
Therefore, it is impossible to implement one thing over another, because
there is going to be a number of sites out there that will either reject my
mail because they aren't following the specs, or I will reject theirs
because I'm not following the specs, or I will reject theirs because they
aren't following specs. At this point in the MTA game, there is no standard
that EVERYBODY follows. There is one that everybody is supposed to follow,
but they don't. So I give up. If all MTA can't jive, then something is
going to break at some point, and there is nothing we can do about it. So,
we are all left with picking and choosing what we feel is right for our
site, whether it follows RFC or not.
Sincerely,
Rick Duvall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <exim@???>
To: "Exim Users Mailing List" <exim-users@???>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Exim] Refuse connection if no MX for sending host
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:36:19PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > [ On Friday, October 24, 2003 at 10:12:28 (+0100), Tony Finch wrote: ]
> >> Subject: Re: [Exim] Refuse connection if no MX for sending host
> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:03:01PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> >>>>> 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?!?!?!?!?
> >> Because there are no valid email addresses at that domain.
> > Strictly speaking there is always one valid e-mail address at every host
> > which answers SMTP, and even all of those which might speak SMTP -- at
>
> That's not an answer to what Tony wrote. There is a valid email address
> at that host, but there is no valid postmaster@<hostname> address. The
> valid address is the unqualified postmaster address.
>
> > least when they might speak as a relay (i.e. ignoring mail readers which
> > should probably use LMTP not SMTP for sending outgoing messages, but
> > which have not since historically LMTP was not specified when they
> > became common).
>
> So this is a complete diversion from what Tony actually wrote, but used
> to justify your own ravings.
>
>
> >> See my previous
> >> comment about not supporting email delivery to arbitrary computers.
> > I never said anything about supporting e-mail delivery to arbitrary
> > computers. If you re-read my very simple question above you'll
> > hopefully understand that I asked only why you wouldn't publish an MX
> > for the host domain name of every _mail_server_ -- i.e. those systems
> > which do already accept e-mail delivery by way of SMTP.
>
> Because they don't accept their hostname as a valid domain-part. What
> part of this is difficult to understand? Tony said it in your quoted
> message, I said it (though you snipped it), and you've raved on about
> postmaster addresses without really answering any of the questions that
> people have put to you about your outrageous assertions. You haven't
> answered anything yet, you've attempted, badly, to fob people off. If
> you're going to make assertions, you have to back them up with something
> more solid than just "if you go read RFC2821 for yourself, you'll
> understand". I have read RFC2821 and I still don't agree with your
> assertions.
>
> Tony asked you a perfectly valid question, "where does it say that you
> have to have MX records for the host name of every host that has other
> MX records pointing at it". You have, so far, totally failed to answer
> this question, instead trying to divert people's attention away from
> the fact that you are unable to answer it.
>
> MBM
>
> --
> Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???>
http://colondot.net/
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim
details at
http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
