From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 12:31:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 12:30:50 -0400 Received: from spike.porcupine.org ([168.100.189.2]:1288 "EHLO spike.porcupine.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 12:30:42 -0400 Subject: Re: notion of a local address [was: Re: ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias In-Reply-To: "from Matthew Kirkwood at Sep 7, 2001 09:52:38 am" To: Matthew Kirkwood Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 12:31:02 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Wietse Venema , Alan Cox , Andrey Savochkin , Matthias Andree , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Time-Zone: USA EST, 6 hours behind central European time X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <20010908163102.7B0DFBC072@spike.porcupine.org> From: wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Kirkwood: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > If an MTA receives a delivery request for user@[ip.address] then > > the MTA has to decide if it is the final destination. This is > > required by the SMTP RFC. > > Would it not suffice, in the common case, to check if the > local address that the SMTP connection was accepted on is > the same as the IP address in the email address? That would not work with local mail submissions. Mail may arrive via channels other than SMTP, yet use addressing methods according to Internet standards. I thank those who made useful suggestions. I apologize to those who mis-understood my question as a request to have kernel programmers explain me the mail RFC standards. I can RTFM the mail RFC standards just fine. The other folks need to grow up a bit. Over and out. Wietse