North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Wed Nov 21 07:31:53 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=T1c9ceAdPH0X/YVHSNhDsTyqif5fi2t/rBhBbaYOgl4=; b=cJwWUmAoaeUYTKH0BUPV0kf4cwyt8/Z4rUsUOBGEvObGelAe9cX+aikgaiMXQB1inHFqBaYX0ofUeyXUfmEad1FYY7Mxdq5diEkTmwjjs5sunK4OKG860qjq5kZpAUOnr83JBvCrRGCGSIRQ5p3ASNTOvU6UmyQNDxHD7iHS/w8=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pNbaaIeCyQaRIK/tC+DtN0L16H0jz5ARkRT5VdRi1Ww26L3TX9bywrt1Wttnt8msg2gV2/QuFFvkEtNYgjSEcGdjoroe02RpvfwvFlM0Yd15gPIXA20fWOLzImRf98HMC7O5d2cC5uMllSIssAuUl8GuV+q6tKxZqc4tqdX7KAU=

On Nov 21, 2007 5:46 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Given what Sean wrote goes to the core of how mail is routed, you'd
> pretty much need to overhaul how MX records work to get around this one,
> or perhaps go back to try to resurrect something like a DNS MB record,
> but that presumes that the problem can't easily be solved in other
> ways.  Sean demonstrated one such way (move the high volume stuff to its
> own domain).
>

Most mailservers do allow you to exempt specific addresses from filtering.

srs