Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:46:34 +0800 From: Igor Podlesny <poige@morning.ru> To: Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re[4]: auto relaying for subdomains -- why? Message-ID: <7575649117.20010906134634@morning.ru> In-Reply-To: <15254.62636.867613.151378@horsey.gshapiro.net> References: <16615694707.20010905210719@morning.ru> <15254.22980.843972.348805@horsey.gshapiro.net> <8264494448.20010906104039@morning.ru> <15254.62636.867613.151378@horsey.gshapiro.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
poige>> Yes, I saw this info here: poige>> http://www.sendmail.org/m4/features.html#relay_mail_from but most poige>> valuable part of my question was about the purpose or the idea behind poige>> this, cause it's not too clear to me why allowing relaying for domain poige>> FOO.BAR should allow relaying for SUB.FOO.BAR? > Because some places have only one machine (firewall) that accepts mail from > the outside world for all of the hosts inside the network. For example, in > my previous life as a sysadmin at WPI, only smtp.wpi.edu would accept > incoming mail for all of the machines (> 3000) on campus. I'd much rather > say "wpi.edu" in one place instead of listing loads of subdomains > (ee.wpi.edu, me.wpi.edu, res.wpi.edu, ...). Not too close to question again... I understand this (this is the need to easily cover all the domain and as I wrote in the initial letter "...I can accept this as reasonable behavior..." having in mind just the same reason you're talking about). But that time I wasn't sure whether it is a SENDMAIL's feature (local configuration as you said after) or it's required/described in RFC. This was the start :) Now it's all clear :) and I understand that it was just a way SENDMAIL's is configured. Another question could be why not to use syntax .foo.bar instead of foo.bar but I'm quite ready to call it a rhetorical one ;-)) (regexps are also there ;-) poige>> I mentioned RFCs because I had a hope to find out the answer from it poige>> but still haven't yet... > RFC's cover protocols over the Internet, not local configuration or policy. But who could say these early hours that such behavior isn't dependant on protocol? :-)) P.S. Thank you everybody, your answers have thrown some additional light upon the subject deepness! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- P.P.S. I'm not quite sure should I start new thread or can remain within it with another question which is: What MTA software supports highly configurable relaying... One of the needed features is a support for using alternative mail routers (relays) in case when this MTA can't send a message by itself because of networks problem. For example situation could be: MTA is on a network A which is temporarily cut off from it's uplink so it can't transfer mail by itself, but it has a connection (permanent or dial-up) to another mailer. Are there such MTAs which can be said "if you can't send it by yourself (would be cool if additional parameters were some_time_period and failure_reason) then use that MTA (ip-addr) or that (another-ip)?". I suspect in common case such "system" could easily lead to loops and have other drawbacks but in such simple configuration it seems all should work fine... -- Igor mailto:poige@morning.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7575649117.20010906134634>