Re: virtual mail domains... long-winded response
According to Nick Busigin:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Al Youngwerth wrote:
>
> > I'd sure like to hear from other ISPs and linux masquerading/diald
> > users out there and how they handle virtual domains. Using linux with
> > masquerading and diald is becoming a very popular way to connect small
> > LANs to businesses so I think its something that ISPs should support well.
> >
> > More ideas and comments?
>
> Hello Al,
>
> What do you think of using MX records to a uucp host and using uucp and
> sendmail's uucp-dom mailer? You can use uucp over a TCP/IP connection, so
> it should work with well with diald.
>
> Nick
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nick Busigin <Sent from my Debian/GNU Linux Machine> nick@xwing.org
>
> To obtain my pgp public key, email me with the subject: "get pgp-key"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have set up a couple of Linux based e-mail servers with uucp. The
main advantages of uucp are low cost and local control of e-mail
accounts. The latest system (a 386SX-16MHz 4MB PC) uses Debian 1.1
with smail and qpopper (pop3) to distribute e-mail to a LAN comprised
of WfWg PC's running Eudora Light clients. The major disadvantage is
the addressing currently required, i.e.,
local-host!username@isp-domain.net
instead of
username@local-host.isp-domain.net
I suspect that the proper MX record at the ISP would fix this.
--
\====================================================/
\ Carl Greco PHONE voice: (402) 496-3381 /
\ cgreco@Novia.Net /
\==============================================/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: