Re: [Evolution] attachments issue

[Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam whitemice org>]

On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 12:06 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 17:48 +0200, Thomas Prost wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 17.05.2013, 10:52 -0430 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: 
> > > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 12:15 +0200, Thomas Prost wrote:
> > > > > pD9548C44.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (probably your own machine)
> > > > > mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (your local mail server?)
> > > > > moutng.kundenserver.de (some intermediate relay)
> > > > That's all my carrier, whose policy I know ...
> > > That's entirely fortuitous. There's no way in general that you can
> > > predict what sequence of relays a message is going to go through.

?? This is just incorrect.  The relay sequence of a message is
determined primarily by end-point relay hosts and MX records.  The
policy within end-points will be consistent [otherwise that policy is
*insane*] so end-point hosts [sites] can be thought of as a single
multi-component apparatus.  So generally there is only my-end-point and
the-other-end-point.   Communication between those is determined almost
exclusively my MX records - which anyone can query, and change very
rarely.

-- 
Adam Tauno Williams <mailto:awilliam whitemice org> GPG D95ED383
Systems Administrator, Python Developer, LPI / NCLA