Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26061; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:07:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.11); Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:06:53 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA25933; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (IDENT:qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA25905; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 19376 invoked by uid 666); 1 Feb 1999 17:07:03 -0000 Date: 1 Feb 1999 17:07:03 -0000 Message-ID: <19990201170703.19374.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address, MX RRs, A RR-only?) References: <28477.917727483@munnari.OZ.AU> <19990201100204.020620@relay.skynet.be> List-Unsubscribe: Low-powered MUAs aren't the only issue here. Consider, for example, an MTA behind a firewall, configured to send all outgoing mail through a particular gateway by name or IP address. Does it make sense to say that this is a violation of the SMTP protocol? ---Dan