On 2011-04-01 17:45:01 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > when the server is down you can not send mails > and you really will not die,
I repeat: When the server is down, I may *NEED* to send mail (for various reasons, e.g. to send logs so that things can be fixed, to warn some people that I can no longer receive mail, and so on). It is certainly not you to decide whether I wish to send mail or not. > if it would be so imortant you need redundancy on the relay-server > (failover, clustering...) all the things are available and > costs some money, but again - is it important you will bring > back the money over the infrastructure or it's not important As you say, it costs money (but also more time for maintenance), so this is out of the question. > > Experience shows that most mail won't be dropped. > > and that is why so many spam is flying around > would no host accept mails where PTR, A-Record, HELO not > match, respect SPF and drop mails from dial-up ranges > spam would dramatically go back It would be better to close the account of spammers, but I don't think that's the right place to discuss these things. > > Still, the question holds: how do I use SASL, with direct SMTP > > as a fallback? > > you can't OK, so I'll continue to use direct SMTP, as long as it works quite reliably (for me). -- 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)
