[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [exim4] mixed up about terminology



On 10/6/2014 10:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:04:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 
>> On 10/5/2014 11:31 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>>
>>> Good point. Just to be pedantic all MTAs act as relays, but I think the
>>> term being talked about is "open relay" IOW it's "open" for anybody to
>>> use, spammers, guy next door etc. etc.
>>
>> One correction - all MTAs *CAN* act as relays.  But sending a message
>> from the sender's MTA to the recipient's MTA is generally not considered
>> "relaying".  A relay would be when there is a third (or fourth or
>> fifth...) MTA between the sender's and recipient's.
> 
> This has prompts one to consider at what point in a ten person relay
> race could "relaying" be regarded as starting.
>

What does this have to do with MTA setup?  Are you just trying to cover
up your ignorance by changing the subject.

>> Only under special conditions would a relay be required. The most
>> obvious one I can think of is a large company with multiple sites; all
>> mail would go to ???@example.com, which would be one MTA.  But this MTA
>> would then relay messages to MTAs at local sites around the world.  And
>> the reverse would happen for messages being sent by employees.
> 
> All the OP wants to do is set up a smarthost for clients on his home
> network. Now he's informed it doesn't meet the "special conditions"
> criterion.
> 

Then why are you suggesting he set up dc_relay_nets?  Maybe because you
don't know what you're talking about?

Jerry


Reply to: