On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > or just stop filtering totally. > > Which is not a option in this case, and in the real world it's that > uncommon. > > I'll see if I can get code together which will do this. > > If we leave this off by default, would people object to putting in > this functionality ? > > /Jesper What's the point? If people complain about a badly setup MX behind a firewall, are you going to respond and tell them to flip a sysctl? This isn't a case of interoperability with a common TCP stack which needs to be lived with. It's a case of something that is broken even with the suggested "fix". The correct thing to do in this situation is to configure sendmail properly so that the MX silliness isn't needed. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Alfred Perlstein
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibite... Mike Silbersack
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohi... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively ... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: React to ICMP administratively ... Mike Silbersack
- Re: React to ICMP administrativ... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively ... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administrativ... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: React to ICMP administr... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administr... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administr... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohi... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibite... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibite... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohi... Mike Silbersack