[ On Saturday, October 25, 2003 at 12:34:36 (+0100), Philip Hazel wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Refuse connection if no MX for sending host
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> > In the mean time you should simply remember to publish MX records for
> > all your e-mail domains, including those also used as hostnames for your
> > mailers.
>
> Perhaps it is time to end this thread, which I've come back to after
> being away (teaching Exim). Am I being silly, or does the above sentence
> imply that the two sides of this argument are talking at cross purposes?
I don't know about "cross purposes", but I do get the distinct feeling
that my suggestions are going right past, or over, the heads of those
who are flailing around trying to find some argument against them.
> I agree entirely with the statement quoted above. However, I do not
> think it necessary or sensible to publish MX records for hostnames that
> are *not* email domains (even if they are the names of email servers).
I understand and agree.
It really depends more on what hostnames are used by the mail server
(and in other posts I've tried to say as much). If your mailer sends a
bounce out using its hostname in the RFC [2]822 headers (or perhaps if
mail sent locally from the machine uses the hostname in the SMTP
envelope sender address) then you should have an MX for that hostname.
However I am not really trying to say that there must be MX records for
all the other hostnames a mail server might be known as, but which are
not in any way related to the SMTP services it provides to its users and
to the public.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
