a powerfull user of domankeys and DKIM
that is it ?
another domain fakessh.eu is up for DK DKIM
the full administrator smtp.wanadoo.fr is a spammeur
script consists of a while loop surrounding a telnet session
Le vendredi 19 juin 2009 à 22:38 -0400, Joseph S D Yao a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 20
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 07:24:41AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
...
> as the ones given). Seriously if you want to show why not, reference a
> reputable site with reputable commentators.
...
Circleid has reputable commentators. I'm not saying that they all are,
only that there exist some; I have
My comments below will be to all in general, not to anyone specific and
no offence intended to anyone...
> RE: Advogato:
Who?
> RE: Circlied:
Who ?
Ok enough of the sarcasm :)
Is someone here seriously trying to use those sites as a "reason" to not
do something, might as well reference
Hello,
Do I dare comment on this? Okay, I do...
RE: Advogato:
If security was easy and conveinent, then everything would be secure. Someone
tell Advogato!
Advogato is complaining because they want an unmanagable environment of dynamic
outbound relays and expect SPF, static DNS records, to keep
Or moreover not to bother with SPF at all as suggested in these
documents?:
Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon:
http://www.advogato.org/article/816.html
How spammers get around SPF:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/782012_spammer_get_around_spf/
-Original Message-
From: bind-users
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:58:31AM +0100, Braebaum, Neil wrote:
> I'm happy with the concept of views, and have used them previously.
>
> Ideally, though (as Chris mentioned) I don't want to have to manage zone
> data for the externally used domain, both on my name servers, and those
> where it's
So is the general recommendation in this group to NOT implement an empty
SPF2.0 record (i.e., "spf2.0/pra") just in case, as recommended in the
5-year-old openspf document referenced below?
-Original Message-
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:uh...@fantomas.sk]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2
That's exactly what I was seeing when I tried that: "rndc: 'freeze' failed:
not found".
You folks have all been so helpful. Like one of the other posters said,
we've done non-dynamic DNS for so long here (years and years) the dynamic
DNS, especially when combined with a mainly Windows environment
On Jun 19 2009, Borgia, Joe A CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RIOS wrote:
Should running a rndc freeze and thaw on the slave server also push the data
from the .jnl files directly to the tables as they do on the master server?
For some weird reason, running a rndc freeze and thaw on the slave runs
successfu
Should running a rndc freeze and thaw on the slave server also push the data
from the .jnl files directly to the tables as they do on the master server?
For some weird reason, running a rndc freeze and thaw on the slave runs
successfully, but it does not push the updates to the zone tables there,
I don't run the external domain / zone, it's provided by a managed
service - I merely tell them the contents.
That's why I'd already ruled out views. I don't want to have to
duplicate the entries for internal use of external values, nor do I want
to drag the running of the domain to my internal na
On 18.06.09 16:22, Jeffrey Collyer wrote:
> M$ has their own take on SPF called Sender ID, which uses a very similar
> record -
>
> "v=spf2.0" rather than "v=spf1"
>
> so be sure to read up on them both before publishing records for one or
> the other.
It has downfalls so I recommend not even
I'm happy with the concept of views, and have used them previously.
Ideally, though (as Chris mentioned) I don't want to have to manage zone
data for the externally used domain, both on my name servers, and those
where it's really provided - on a managed service, hosted and provided
externally.
H
13 matches
Mail list logo
