My e-mail is alex@relcom.net, but I send it when I am on DSL with EthLink (and thru Earthlink SMTP). And it is 100% valid situation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: <nanog@nanog.org> Cc: <mleber@he.net> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:25 AM Subject: Re: Email peering
In between the choice of accepting mail from *anybody* by default which we have now and the choice of accepting mail from *nobody* by default that explicit peering agreements represents there is another solution; which is to accept mail only from IPs that have *some relation* to the sender's From domain, for example by MX record or by reverse DNS (we implemented that test and call it MX+).
This has the same problem as all of the other duct tape authorization schemes -- it breaks a lot of valid e-mail, so that you have to maintain a painfully large manual exception table, or write off a lot of mail that your users will not forgive you for losing, or more likely, both.
In this particular case, the biggest issue is forwarders, commercial ones like pobox.com, associations like the ACM and IEEE (I get some odd mail being uucp at computer.org), and large numbers of colleges and universities which let graduates keep their email address. In all of those cases, the users send mail from their own ISPs, whatever they are, inbound mail is forwarded back to the ISP accounts, and there is no way to enumerate the valid sources of mail.
There's also plenty of domains where the inbound and outbound mail servers are different, and neither one matches the domain name of the mail. For example, I host about 300 small mail domains on a pop toaster here. The MX is mail2.iecc.com, and the outbound host that many but not all of them use is xuxa.iecc.com. (Mail for iecc.com itself is on another host.) The IPs all happen to be in the same /24, but guessing whether two IPs are "close enough" is a poor way to authenticate or authorize anything.
Before you point out that they could change the way those systems work to be compatible with your scheme, well, duh, sure. But if you're going to make people change their existing working mail setups, there's little point in going through the vast cost of a widespread change for such a marginal benefit. Read archives of SPF mailing lists for endless flamage on this topic, since SPF has the same problem.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web