You are not currently logged in. If you do not have a user account then please consider creating one and logging in before you post your comment. This will allow you to track replies to your comment, and take part in the site much more freely.

To add your comment, fill in all the boxes below and then preview it to make sure you're happy with the way that it looks.

This is the comment you were replying to, attached to the weblog Obfuscating source IP for SMTP AUTH in Exim4

#4 Re: Obfuscating source IP for SMTP AUTH in Exim4 Posted by daemon (155.232.xx.xx) on Wed 28 Feb 2007 at 21:02 I'm not trying to be picky, more a devil's advocate just trying to clarify, but the arguments seem to be of the "inverse strawman" variety ;-) It may be going on between an MSA and an MTA, rather than between MTA's, but it is still SMTP, not, to quote Lee, "a separate, albeit SMTP compatible, protocol". That really is playing with words alittle too far in my view. I don't have any strong feeling either way, but the explanations seem to be more to convince yourselves that you're not doing a "bad" (RFC-breaking) thing rather than just being honest about not really seeing the need to put your IP address in the headers... Go on, own up to it, you won't be punished ;-) As for GMail, well, at it's heart it's a webmail service, and as such a whole different ballgame of the "what actually _is_ the client" argument -- which IP address would you stick in the header, the the IP from the users browser, or the IP of the server in google's cluster? There's no easy answer, as any answer will be both right and wrong, depending on which way you look at it... Cheers. (PS, I don't know if it's true, but I heard that Google have an army of half-height clone admin's running around...)

Username:	Anonymous
Title:
Your Comment:
Posting Format:	BBCode HTML Text Plain Text Textile

Inappropriate comments will be removed.

Username:

Password:

[ Advanced Login ]

Register Account