Jon Rust wrote:
> >> Essentially what we're dancing around is the issue of deliberate
> >> misconfiguration in an effort to save sysadmin time: "It's hard work to
> >> set up split DNS. Why not just have a low numbered MX record for
> >> internal hosts, and a higher numbered record for external hosts? It
> >> works for sendmail, so it should work for everything, right?"
> >
> >This is irrelevant. Qmail has no problem with this particular product of
> >ignorancy unless it can somehow connect to the internal host and get
> >disconnected (or get a temporary error during the conversation).
>
> Agreed. In this case, all it was getting (correct me if I'm wrong)
> was a TCP ack for the establishment, not an SMTP greeting. no
> "conversation" ever happened. Hence qmail should not assume an SMTP
> server is successfully running, and should drop back to secondary MX
> record(s). If it got an SMTP greeting, maybe queuing the message
> would be more correct, but it isn't.
Why should a failure at any point in the connection and conversation bias
the behaviour of deciding to, or not to, try another MX host? Why is that a
situation where an SMTP server is indeed running, but failure in mid course,
be any different than a connection refused, with regard to deciding if
another MX would be reasonable to attempt to communication with?
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
