[ On Monday, June 14, 2004 at 11:46:21 (+0200), Giuliano Gavazzi wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] AOL - SPF - and EXIM
>
> At 4:41 pm -0400 2004/06/13, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [...]
> >well. No RFC can mandate site security policies, no matter what the
> >reason. Period. :-)
> [...]
>
> and nothing you might say can mandate my site security policies, so I
> reject at RCPT stage as this is required by my spam scoring routines
> and by whitelisting. Period. :-P
Of course -- but I'm not trying to influence _your_ site security
policies (or any other individual site's policies of course) -- I'm
trying to influence in some way the evolution of the software you might
use to implement those policies so that there cannot be trivial
wide-spread adoption of any policies that will be damaging to SMTP
interoperability on the Public Internet.
If cajoling and academic discussion does not bring about such influence
then maybe controversy will. ;-)
> [and I CC'ed you... because today I feel like it, even if I know it
> will bounce.]
If it will bounce then I will certainly not care as you'll not waste any
significant amount of my resources with an unnecessary duplicate. :-)
Indeed it did bounce -- your PTR makes your IP look too much like a
dynamic address to me. :-)
(I do really need to much better tune the expression I use to try to
identify dynamic IPs though.)
However you might consider trying to get this mismatch fixed:
$ host -A mailhost.humph.com
*** mailhost.humph.com address 217.155.139.146 maps to hostname dsl-217-155-139-146.zen.co.uk
*** Hostname mailhost.humph.com does not belong to address 217.155.139.146
*** Not all addresses for hostname mailhost.humph.com have a matching hostname.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
