After reading some initial responses to this, I thought it was worth
asking for clarification: (4) and (5) together would indicate that the
user wants to use his "ownership" of the slow connection's IP address as a
source for the mail, but wants to deliver it via tha fast DUL-listed
connection. Is that the problem we're addressing?
If not, please disregard the babble below.
If so, it seems that any solution allowing this will cause problems (in
this particular case, anyway) at the point his upstream ISP (on the fast
side) checks that the packets coming down the pipe are from a valid IP
address (i.e. one that is supposed to be located on that side of that
pipe). Anything less secure would seem to encourage IP spoofing.
On a less technical note, it seems that addressing the state of being
listed in a DUL by patching/modifying/changing software won't ever scale
well. The purpose of blocking lists and their use by ISPs is to actively
and immediately discourage mail abuse AND to make end-users aware of what
their ISPs are facilitating. Without knowing all the circumstances
involved, I think the user should take (1) a little farther; just because
he/she doesn't have a fixed IP doesn't mean that he/she can't pursue the
issue with the ISP. It's true that they may be unable to respond
adequately, but making some noise about the issue seems like a lower risk
than, well, asking Dan to add a feature to qmail. :)
Chris
On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> A user on this mailing list has a problem. He has a fast non-static
> IP ADSL connection, which is listed on the DUL. The non-default route
> was a slow second internet connection with a static IP and which was
> not listed on the DUL. He has several choices that I can see:
>
> 1) Try to get his fast connection removed from the DUL. That's not
> acceptable since he doesn't have a fixed IP address.
>
> 2) Let his SMTP client connections go out from the IP address on the
> DUL. This isn't acceptable because anybody subscribing to the DUL
> will reject his email.
>
> 3) Use a wildcard smtproutes entry to redirect his email to his ISP's
> email relay. This isn't acceptable because he doesn't want to have to
> trust his ISP. He wants to be able to look in his log files and know
> that the email has been accepted by the recipient's SMTP server.
>
> 4) He could change the default route to point to the slow connection.
> Obviously unacceptable.
>
> 5) He simply MUST convince qmail-remote to bind to the IP address of
> the slow non-DUL interface. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that
> short of patching qmail. Why should he have to patch qmail in order
> to add a feature he needs? As you've said yourself, the problem with
> people offering patches is that you don't get an indication of how
> many people are using the patch.
>
> 6) His only acceptable alternative to patching qmail is to try to
> convince you to add this as a feature to qmail. Other people have
> tried to get this feature added, and you've called their desire
> "frivolous". He doesn't hold out much hope for success.
>
> What should he do? Give up on convincing you and patch qmail?
>
>
-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
