Re: transport or canonical

Subject: Re: transport or canonical
From: Adam Levin (alevinaudible.com)
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 14:24:27 CST

• Next message: Edward S. Marshall: "QSBMF, DSN, and such"
• Previous message: Wietse Venema: "Re: transport or canonical"
• In reply to: Wietse Venema: "Re: transport or canonical"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The transport map is the way to send mail ignoring MX records.

Ok, good, that's what I thought.

> To prevent this disaster, do not MX the server1 to the mailhost.
> Instead, configure server1 so it sends mail as userdomain. Then
> you don't need to jump hoops with transport tables.

Easily done, but I think I'd like to keep the mailserver as the single
point of entry for mail into our organization, unless that breaks
something important.

Thanks,

-Adam Levin
 Senior Unix Systems Administrator
 Audible, Inc.
 Wayne, NJ, USA
 973-890-4070 x297

• Next message: Edward S. Marshall: "QSBMF, DSN, and such"
• Previous message: Wietse Venema: "Re: transport or canonical"
• In reply to: Wietse Venema: "Re: transport or canonical"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Dec 08 1999 - 14:25:56 CST