Hi, * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 09:04]: > > * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > > > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > > > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box > > > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail?
> > ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs > > may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up > > lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people > > forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver > > simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which > > run open relays so that there's much more spam going through > > those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. > I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently > >from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts > being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the "from" > address. I made the from_envelope match the "from" address and have > had no more rejections. That's another kind of check. Some mail servers also check if the IP you try to connect from matches the DNS name of the HELO/EHLO command and vise versa. SMTP only requires any destination to accept any mail; futher delivery process may be blocked by any reason. But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was rejected. > AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available > for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp > account?? I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. Cheers, Rocco.
