Mike 'Fraz' White wrote: >
> --8<--
> > Even though, all your email should be sent this way.
> >
> --8<--
> >
> > The main disadvantage is that it is a lot of extra work, when you
> > should just be sending all your emai lto the smarthost in this case.
>
> Don't tell me, there's an RFC somewhere that says it has to be done this
> way ;o)
I never did say that there was an RFC that says that. My point is this,
DHCP and therefore 'untracable/un-accountable' IP addresses should not be
used to host any kind of 'network service' and expect that others will
trust the source of the network service. That is why there are hosting
companies and ISPs that will give static IP addresses that have proper
DNS PTR records that are associated with the url/domain of the service on
that IP address. It all comes down trust, and when an IP connects to my
server that a DNS PTR of ' ipxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.ks.ok.cox.net' how I can trust
that is a 'real server' and not just some infected machine? Not perfect,
nothing is, but if the PTR is mymailserver.domain.com, at least I know
that there is some kind of paper record for the PTR being established
should the need to look into it ever arise, and the level of trust can be
higher just for that reason. The same applies to those that think the
absence of a DNS PTR record increases security or trust with other
entities, this is just a flawed outlook IMO.
Lastly, perhaps I have better luck than most, but I just do not accept the
'My ISPs mailserver sucks' argument as an acceptable reason for not sending
your email through their gateway. If their mailserver sucks so bad, then
how is the rest of their service? At least in the USA, there are too many
options to not pick a better ISP.
