On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:10:57PM +0100, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
> From: Giuliano Gavazzi <dev+lists@???>
> Subject: Re: [exim] Blocking dynamic IPs
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:10:57 +0100
> To: Exim Users <exim-users@???>
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2005, at 09:18, Adam Funk wrote:
>
> >On Thursday 15 December 2005 09:11, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
> >>I sayd some weeks ago an RFC that says that an SMTP-Server **MUST**
> >>have static IP.
> >>I forgot this RFC. Could someone say me which RFC say that?
> >
> >There is no such RFC. "MUST have static IP" is your personal
> >policy only
> >and is not supported by any standard.
> >
> >In fact, according to some interpretations of RFCs 2821 and 2142,
> >you must
> >accept e-mail to postmaster and abuse from any IP unless you have a
> >specific reason for rejecting that IP (e.g. it has been abusing your
> >system).
>
> without starting a religious war it can be argued that this
> interpretation requires that a (public) MTA must have a static IP.
> Otherwise how can someone mail to postmaster @ an IP if that IP
> floats around? (and conversely one would have to run an MTA on any IP
> that might have been recently used by an MTA...)
> Not totally serious..
> Giuliano
You would email postmaster @ a domain name, and DNS would sort out the
IP address.
Steven.
--
The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth of
management is that success equals skill.
-- Robert Heller
