On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:28:40PM +0100, Dario Cavallaro wrote:
> just to be sure anyone want's to strip routes away knows what he/she is doing:
>
> From: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
>
> "If source routes are stripped, this practice will cause failures."
>
> Don't strip routes/paths 'til you are working on internet. It is
> dangerous and it's not rfc-compliant.
>
> Hope to be helpful.
Actually, this is very much not helpful. The (ripped mercilessly) out
of context quote completely reverses the meaning of the RFC text:
... SMTP clients
SHOULD NOT generate explicit source routes except under unusual
circumstances. SMTP servers MAY decline to act as mail relays or to
accept addresses that specify source routes. When route information
is encountered, SMTP servers are also permitted to ignore the route
information and simply send to the final destination specified as the
last element in the route and SHOULD do so.
There has been an invalid practice of using names that do not
appear in the DNS as destination names, with the senders counting
on the intermediate hosts specified in source routing to resolve
any problems. If source routes are stripped, this practice will
cause failures. This is one of several reasons why SMTP clients
MUST NOT generate invalid source routes or depend on serial
resolution of names.
So "this practice" is that of *using* routes, not stripping routes. Route
stripping is the norm.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
