From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <076101c38463$002bb900$b9844051@insultant.net> From: "boyd, rounin" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <20030926143949.N19995@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <2e7e48ea41b82dbd542a007030b41e0a@plan9.bell-labs.com> <20030926152349.O19995@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:18:42 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 510134f4-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > The opposite may also work: try the MX for the destination first, > with a bit of luck you'll have a certificate to grant you access. > If not, you're stuck with your most accommodating ISP. say there are no MX's but the host you are mailing has multiple IP addresses and they might be forwarders or whatever. one thing i do know is that BIND returns the A records randomly; it's there to provide load balancing. this is a non-trivial problem, in the general case. i want a solution for the general case. patching [E]SMTP is a waste of time. the whole thing is a nightmare. it's like a jigsaw puzzle (or IKEA furniture) and the pieces don't fit.