On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:44:10PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at 10:14:48 (+0000), Philip Hazel wrote: ]
> > That's a good description of the way I have always understood this.
>
> No, it's totally bogus.
So you're going to mandate that all hosts on the internet must accept
email, whether they are running a SMTP daemon or not, just because
you can mail postmaster@[theiripaddress] ?
This is the logical extension to the argument that postmaster@[ipliteral]
works. Remember - one of the arguments put forward is that any host
which can send mail should be contactable by this means so that problems
can be reported.
Consider the case where a host does not run a SMTP daemon, but has (eg)
/usr/sbin/sendmail invoked by some user program which routes mail out
from the host.
Consider the case where a host sends mail out from behind a firewall,
but does not allow incoming SMTP connections to that specific host.
I'm sure there's many more cases which need consideration, and you'll
soon realise that requiring postmaster@[ipliteral] actually only solves
/one/ problem case.
> You cannot look at this issue from one direction only.
No, I think you're looking at the issue from one direction only. Take
a moment to consider the side cases of wanting postmaster@[ipliteral]
to work.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
