>Maybe so. Still, why reinvent the wheel using DNS when it sets up >incredibly easily using the current method? There's no way UDP
yes, but with DNS you can set a TTL that can be used by the peers to cache the MX records and their A records. > is >faster than shared memory. shared memory? > > Also, no need to enable the dangerous VRFY command. > >Anybody using peering intelligently knows that you don't allow >external SMTP to peer servers--they're POP3 only. I bet 99% of Imail peer users have their all Imail peer servers directly onto internet as MX hosts. > > RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see if it get rejected > >More efficient than VRFY on a two-server setup, tons more overhead >with 3+. VRFY is much more scalable as your hit rate goes down. why? tcp connect to a peer, start smtp session, then either VRFY user or RCPT TO: user ... how is VRFY so much better? Len http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND for NT4 & W2K http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
