Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case

2006-07-03 Thread Ross Boylan
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 03:55 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: ... > > Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I > haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at > it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice > as much!

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case

2006-07-01 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: Ross Boylan wrote: Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages from dial-up hosts should go on

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case (clarification)

2006-06-30 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
On 6/30/2006 11:08 PM, Ross Boylan wrote: To clear up an ambiguity in my original: On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client? Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my domain), and that I do

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case (clarification)

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
To clear up an ambiguity in my original: On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client? > Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my > domain), and that I do want to accept such mail. The human c

Re: trusted_networks confusion--simple case

2006-06-30 Thread Ross Boylan
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly > the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to > fill that in). My setup is a bit more complex than the one described here; I said "assume f