Re: sendmail?
jkinz@xxxxxxxx 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 <sahil@xxxxxxxxxx>