Re: Problems with mail system? [Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown]
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:44:06PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> >> yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily bounce
> >> their mail until then.
> >Are you willing to pay the difference between the cost of that user's
> >current ISP and one which meets your standard? Until then, you have
> >absolutely no right to tell someone what ISP they should use.
> >For some, the option of getting another ISP is unaffordable or even
> >impossible in some regions of the world. This is sometimes true even in
> >the US, especially if you require more than a modem connection.
> A server on the 'net without matching forward/reverse DNS is broken.
Complete bullshit. Show me the RFC that says you may only have one DNS
name attached to an IP at a time. You can't do it because it doesn't
exist. Several Debian developers have debian.net subdomains which do not
reverse because they have no control over their DNS even though their IP
addresses are static. My static IP address with @home (yes, I did
convince them to give me one) is cc659474-a.indnpls1.in.home.com as far as
they are concerned. I have no desire to use that hostname on my email, so
I have this:
tank.debian.net A 22.214.171.124
This is perfectly legal practice according to every RFC I have ever read.
It is also quite legitimate for my system to declare that it is
tank.debian.net which does indeed resolve to a valid IP address. The fact
people such as yourself would add the additional requirement that
126.96.36.199 resolve back to tank.debian.net has nothing to do with what
the RFC's state is correct.
If I file a bug against a package and my report is bounced as probably
spam, I will NMU the package immediately without discussion or further
attempts at a warning. As a Debian developer, you have an obligation to
maintain your packages. If you wish to act stupid regarding your mail
policies that's fine - until it interferes with maintaining packages. At
that point, it affects all of us.
> What if someones ISP drops 50% of all messages. Should the Debian
> mailinglist servers simply send all messages 4 times so that the
> chance is bigger of the recipient actually getting the message?
> Ofcourse not, because the ISP should fix the mailserver instead
> since it is broken.
> The DNS issue is *exactly* the same. The fact that it happens to work
> some or even most of the time doesn't make it less broken.
Once again, complete bullshit. There is absolutely nothing anywhere which
states an IP address may only have one name or that if it has more than
one, you must use only the primary DNS for which you have reverse set up.
Requiring that the name an IP reverses to also being able to resolve to
the IP is a different matter if you're willing to jump through the lookup
hoops to make sure the reverse name is actually the machine in question.
How this would combat spam, I have no idea, but if you found such a system
it would indeed be very broken.
Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
<Dr^Nick> SGI_Multitexture is bad voodoo now
<Dr^Nick> ARB is good voodoo
<witten> no, voodoo rush is bad voodoo :)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org