On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 21:03 +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> So, it is well established that mail from a domain doesn't have to be sent
> from the MX for the domain. But the converse should be true, shouldn't it?
> I.e. an MX for a domain is normally a legitimate deliverer of mail from that
> do
--On Monday, January 29, 2007 9:03 PM +0100 Magnus Holmgren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, it is well established that mail from a domain doesn't have to be
sent from the MX for the domain. But the converse should be true,
shouldn't it? I.e. an MX for a domain is normally a legitimate deliver
On Monday 29 January 2007 15:01, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Mike Jackson wrote:
> > Shouldn't mail be sent through the MX for a domain?
>
> Not if the domain is of any decent size.. Using different servers for
> outbound vs inbound mail is a very common load balancing tactic for
> large sites.
>
> Which
On Mon, January 29, 2007 14:38, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Before my actual question, here's a little background. Right now, I see how
> pointless SPF is; few domains publish records, even fewer MTAs running in
> the wild use SPF to accept/reject mail. When I look at the SPF scoring on my
> server (whe
Mike Jackson wrote:
> Before my actual question, here's a little background. Right now, I
> see how pointless SPF is; few domains publish records, even fewer MTAs
> running in the wild use SPF to accept/reject mail. When I look at the
> SPF scoring on my server (where I'm running an SPF milter for
Before my actual question, here's a little background. Right now, I see how
pointless SPF is; few domains publish records, even fewer MTAs running in
the wild use SPF to accept/reject mail. When I look at the SPF scoring on my
server (where I'm running an SPF milter for Sendmail), most of the ma
