On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:11:40 +0200 Ralf Ertzinger <ralf@???> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:59:14AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> > a better solution would have been to point the "666" MX record at
> > an IP where there was nothing listening on port 25. unfortunately,
> > they didn't do that.
> Given the fact that most SPAM today is being deliverd via hijacked
> dialup accounts, they probably did.
ok, this is probably true, but technically it'd be more acceptable to
use an arbitrary IP address out of a range you control, rather than
using one that has special significance. obviously, using 127.0.0.1
broke something.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@???
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
