Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!mmm!com50!com2serv!ahby
From: ahby@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (ahby)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: parks and MX records
Message-ID: <118@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG>
Date: 2 Sep 88 15:31:56 GMT
References: <1052@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5384@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Reply-To: ahby@com2serv.UUCP ()
Organization: Com Squared Systems, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 24

In article <5384@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes:
>Still no good. Nameservers and MX forwarders are totally seperate. A
>nameserver can have a unique record for every host, while an MX forwarder
>simply special-cases everything in the domain and transfers it to the
>domain's gateway. In this scenario, the forwarder will never receive a
>piece of mail for an invalid host.

>Any Internet site can be a forwarder. The idea that only a few specially-
>equipped installations can do it is a myth. All it takes is a friendly
>postmaster.

I'm not disagreeing, but feel I should point out that it takes a
little more than congeniality to make an Internet site a forwarder.
You need the right version of sendmail, bind, and someone who really
understandards sendmail.cf to make it work correctly.  Even then, the
number of sites who will bash your headers, munge your From: lines,
etc... is large, and many people are just not willing to change.  They
won't believe that you are running an RFC 976 conforming mailer, and
they are not interested in your reasons for wanting them to drop
everything and make their machine work they way you perceive as right.
These people exist (think god), but they are rare.
-- 
Shane P. McCarron			ATT:	+1 612 452-9522
Project Manager				UUCP:	ahby@c2s.mn.org