On 2011-04-01 01:01:34 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Those machines should be talking to a public-facing MTA that > tolerates unqualified names; they shouldn't be talking to the public > Internet with an unqualified name.
The main smarthost of my ISP gets blacklisted by some lists each time someone sends spam (this is a small ISP, so that it gets blacklisted much easier than large ISP's, which are probably whitelisted). There's also a smarthost that checks incoming messages with an antispam software, but false positives would be dropped without notice, which is unacceptable. > But even then, sending a hostname without a domain name Actually mine has a resolvable domain name after the first dot (only the full hostname isn't resolvable). > violates the SMTP RFC. In the face of such widespread abuse, I'm a > fan of being as strict as possible. Well, it violates only a SHOULD (because I should send an IP address while I don't). In practice, not so many people reject messages with unresolvable hostnames. So, currently, that's better than using one of my ISP's smarthost. I could now use SASL (this wasn't possible in the past because I didn't have my own server), but there would still be problems to solve: how can I use a fallback (on the client side) to the direct method when for some reason, the server is not reachable? -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
