[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Stanford disliking my emails -- update + question

From: Bob Carragher
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Stanford disliking my emails -- update + question
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:34:49 -0700

Hmm ... I seem to have not received a mailing list posting:  I've
never seen the text that Ken quoted.

I'm pretty sure that Comcast would be willing to provide me with
my own FQDN (*.comcast.net, or possibly an "arbitrary" one) for a
fee.  Maybe even for free.  But I never looked into the option
since I've never needed one outside sending emails.  (That is a
very important need, granted, and maybe I should.)

Google may also do the same (though not "*.google.com"), but not
as part of GMail.

As for Ken's "Thirdly" note:  I can't disagree with you.  Sadly,
Stanford has invested heavily in using Proofpoint, and are not
likely to change until maybe the university president starts
missing email.  (Though, in that case, they'd probably just make
an exception for him.)


On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:29:45 -0400 Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> sez:

> >There are usually two options - first, most ISPs (and
> >particularly e-mail suppliers) also supply FQDN's as part of
> >their service - often at no extra charge (since it costs them
> >nothing).  Of course that way your FQDN would be tied to the
> >provider, and change whenever you switch providers, but if all
> >you care about is having one for uses like HELO lines, etc, it
> >would be fine (you just need to remember to reconfigure when
> >required.)
> While I understand that's the ideal solution ... I think as a
> solution to THIS problem it's rather ridiculous.
> First, I do not agree with your statement that ISPs/e-mail
> suppliers also provide FQDNs as part of their service.  I do
> not believe, for example, that Verizon (my current ISP) or
> pobox.com (my current email forwarder) does this, and if they
> do they certainly don't do it for free.  Okay, these are only
> two data points.  Maybe everyone else does it.
> Now, my edge router does have an IP address that has a FQDN
> (something based on the IP address).  But AFAIK there isn't
> really a reasonable way for someone behind a NAT to determine
> what their external IP address is; I could hardcode it, but it
> changes occasionally.
> Secondly ... I will note that I believe no other MUA lets you
> explicitly configure the hostname for the SMTP HELO/EHLO
> messages.  Maybe there are a few that do ... but certainly none
> of the common programs that the vast majority of people on
> Windows use.  In my experience, those MUAs simply use an
> unqualified name based on the hostname of the local box.  That
> suggests to me that needing a FQDN to send mail is not a de
> facto requirement, and having it be a requirement for nmh users
> is an undue burden.  FWIW, at home my Received headers probably
> show this email coming from the ".internal" domain, and AFAIK I
> don't get spam bounces.
> Thirdly ... I think it's ridiculous that Stanford's anti-spam
> rules trawl through Received headers (which are defined as
> being free-form) and look for suspicious hostnames when you've
> already sent that email through your email provider and it has
> a valid DKIM header; gmail has already certified that the email
> came from an authenticated user, why does Stanford care what
> your local hostname is?
> --Ken
> _______________________________________________
> Nmh-workers mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]