From: Greg A. Woods (no email)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 13:47:34 EST
[ On Friday, January 2, 2004 at 20:03:18 (-0800), Kurtis D. Rader wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Acceptance of domain literals
>
> I'll have to reply to myself since Mr. Woods chose to reply privately then
> refused to accept my reponse:
>
> <>: host mail.weird.com[204.92.254.2] refused to talk to me:
> 501-fatal error while validating 'HELO' host name 'skepticism.us'.
> 501-connection rejected from 216-99-206-50.cust.aracnet.com remote address
> [216.99.206.50]. 501-Reason given was: 501- No reverse DNS PTR for the
> remote address [216.99.206.50] has a 501 hostname matching
> 'skepticism.us'
Nothing against you -- just your DNS is broken. :-)
> It works just fine for the intended purpose. Yes, it does have some
> shortcomings (e.g., not properly handling ICMP PORT_UNREACHABLE replies
> which breaks traceroute unless you tell it to use ICMP ECHO instead of UDP
> datagrams). But I'm not aware of any flaws that would make it unsuitable
> for use between a low-volume Postfix MTA and the Internet.
The very same implementation flaws that cause problems with traceroute
will cause problems with TCP, especially w.r.t. error handling. SMTP
uses TCP.
> Mr. Wietse provided a cogent answer regarding the potential problems
> one might encounter running Postfix behind a NAT router/firewall. You
> replied with FUD.
Actually we both gave the same answer, just with differing levels of
detail.
Besides, I think if you really understood the implications of these
details already then you would not have had to ask the question in the
first place and you would have understood my statement immediately.
-- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <> Planix, Inc. <> Secrets of the Weird <>
|
|
|