Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 09/05/2012 12:50 PM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 10:19 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > On 09/05/2012 05:56 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
> > > On 09/04/2012 03:52 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > > > On 09/04/2012 09:34 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
> > > > > If you are sending direct SMTP on behalf of your domain from essentially random locations, how are we supposed to pick 
> > > > > you out from spammers that do the same?
> > > >
> > > > Use DKIM.
> > > You say that like it's a lower bar than setting up a fixed SMTP server and using that.
> >
> > I say it like it addresses your concern.
>
> Well, if you've got proper forward and reverse DNS, and your portable SMTP server identifies itself properly, and you are using 
> networks that don't filter outbound port 25, AND you have DKIM configured correctly and aren't using it for a situation for which 
> it is inappropriate, then you'll get the same results with a portable SMTP server that you would sending through a properly configured 
> static server.
>
> So, no, "use DKIM" does not address the delivery difficulties inherent to using a portable SMTP server.
My how the goalposts are moving. DKIM solves the problem of producing
a stable identifier for a mail stream which is what your originally positioned
goalposts was asking for. It also makes reverse dns lookups even more
useless than they already are.

Mike