Re: why needs to be a direct SMTP-server?

[Boris Pavlov <edi@elib.minfin.bg>]

Chris Wagner wrote:

> At 03:11 PM 7/28/2006 +0200, sturla@hitconsult.no wrote:
>  
>
> > When I put up my first mail-server some years ago I had problems sending
> > mail to servers using sorbs or other blacklists blocking non-static ip's,
> > but only until I found out I could use my isp's SMTP as a smart-host, this
> > seemed to solve that problem, or is it something I'm missing?
> > Is there any reason why your server needs to be a direct SMTP-server?
> >    
>
> What a refreshing post. :)  Ur totally right.  Forwarding to ur ISP is the
> "right" way to do it.  It has several advantages.  Reduces configuration and
> maintenance on ur end.  Offloads server work, less DNS, disk, and CPU time.
> It can actually improve mail performance because u can take advantage of ur
> upstream's cacheing, redundancy, and aggregation.  One reason u would
> actually want to deliver ur own mail is if u were doing something special,
> like private or secure mail services.  TLS, SMTP login, etc.  Something ur
> upstream couldn't do.  Or if u don't trust them, they're broken, etc.
>  
unfortunately, these "special" things are going more and more common. 
that is one side of the problem.
and many of the (small and maybe bigger) ISP's don't even bother with 
this. you can purchase service, but hey you do not buy proxy server 
access if you need to look at some web site... and, i still do not think 
that this is always the "right way" doing so, if we do assume that the 
"ip addresses are created equal".

you forgot one more plus for having own smtp server - if you do have 
your server,  you can know more about what really happened to "this 
particular message".

anyway, if you do not want to bother, this is always an option, to use 
isp's MX or to arrange/purchase one.

edi