jk...@kinz.org wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:22:08AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > bill lam wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, David Maus wrote: > > > > So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the > > > > delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some > > > > mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip > > > > addresses for spam prevention. > > > > > > More specifically, it needs a mx record in order to delivery email. I > > > don't think dynamic ip host will provide you a mx record. If you > > > register a domain name, you can setup your own mx records, however if > > > spams were sent, it will be blacklisted. > > > > This is false; you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. > > True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that > comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another > spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX > record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an > MX record is "almost" a requirement.
This is also false. Sending email from a domain without an MX record is perfectly acceptable. And, when you receive email from most major mailers (i.e. gmail), the connecting system is not a valid MX. If a real SMTP client attempts to send email to domainX, it will first look up the MX and try sending there; if there is no MX record, then the mail is directed at the A record. This is all governed by RFCs. Can you give an example of a legitimate SMTP server out there that rejects email based solely on the fact that it comes from a domain with no MX record? I am sure some people do this, but I'd be surprised if it were as prevalent as you suggest. -- Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net>
