No subject

[mij at bitchx.it]

>From michele.mazzucchi at fastwebnet.it Wed Jan 21 00:28:25 2004
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609)
In-Reply-To: <20040120190739.GA62180 at shellma.zin.lublin.pl>
References: <93570F3C-4B56-11D8-9538-000A95CCF092 at bitchx.it> <20040120153117.GL86062 at isnic.is> <C16A59A6-4B77-11D8-BB67-000A95CCF092 at bitchx.it> <20040120190739.GA62180 at shellma.zin.lublin.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed
Message-Id: <5850BBA2-4BA0-11D8-BC11-000A95CCF092 at bitchx.it>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mij <mij at bitchx.it>
Subject: Re: mx vs ns
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:28:25 +0100
To: hubs at freebsd.org

Il giorno 20/gen/04, alle 20:07, Pawel Malachowski ha scritto:

> Actually, it's right.

I don't like flames.


>> for a message in the queue, the tryouts and retry intervals
>> are not specified in any RFC. Anyone can push the queue maximum
>> size lower, or shorten the max life of message in it. It's also 
>> possible
>> me to run a mta without a "hard" queue, just suddendly reporting
>> an error to the sender on failures, although rare.
>
> That's Your problem then.

Yes! Good solution. Our mail activity is up to our users!


> I don't even know, what piece of software is running on mx1,
> but please note, that mx1 should accept every message from
> mx backup. This means, backup mx must hold identical anti-spam
> shield as mx1 does.

mmm... no, i can't understand really well what you're talking about.
does mx1 block smtp sessions from certain ip(s)?
If not, as the whole rest of the world, and instead does just 
per-content
branches, then you're raising a problem that does not exist.
please note that mx1 would receive from its backup the mail the same
way it would from the real sender's mx. The only thing that differs is
the ip the session is made from (and a few new headers for message
history tracking). mx1 could not distinguish then.

bye