On 07/08/15 02:03, Charles Swiger wrote:
>> So ISC: please fix your list servers, let them rewrite the From headers!
>
> How would this help? Changing the From header breaks your domain's DKIM
> signing; are you asking them to take ownership of your messages and then DKIM
> sign
> them on beha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.08.2015 um 07:16 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
>
>
> On 2015-08-06 19:26, Heiko Richter wrote:
>
>>> Though back then I was still building bind 32-bit, and the
>>> hardware as much slower. A full signing was more than 10x
>>> longer than
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>
> Am 07.08.2015 um 01:25 schrieb Heiko Richter:
>
>> So ISC: please fix your list servers, let them rewrite the From headers!
>>
>
> please try to understand the topic before blaming!
> http://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC
>
> * SPF is about envelo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.08.2015 um 08:52 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
> Gjust noticed that about 12 hours ago, the business office
> person finally update our KSK with registrar. (where window was
> last month.)
>
> Well, apparently history must repeat...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.08.2015 um 08:29 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
>>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Heiko Richter
>>> mailto:em...@heikorichter.name>>
>>> wrote:
Whenever I post something to the list (I'm not using SMTP,
I'm using a usenet server to post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.08.2015 um 08:03 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
> In looking through the received headers I see that there's no SPF
> for lists.isc.org
Wether or not lists.isc.org was never in question.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.2
Am 07.08.2015 um 17:23 schrieb Heiko Richter:
Am 07.08.2015 um 08:29 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On Aug 6, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Heiko Richter
mailto:em...@heikorichter.name>>
wrote:
Whenever I post something to the list (I'm not using SMTP,
I'm using a usenet server to post to
comp.protocols.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Heiko Richter
wrote:
> Correction:
> -
> All implementations of SPF always check 2 addresses:
> - Envelope-From address
> - From address
>
> SPF will fail whenever the client is not authorized to send for either
> the Envelope-From address or the
Am 07.08.2015 um 08:29 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
SPF must only check envelope address, not header From: address - it
was never designed to do the latter.
On 07.08.15 17:23, Heiko Richter wrote:
Correction:
-
All implementations of SPF always check 2 addresses:
- Envelope-Fr
On 2015-08-07 09:50, Heiko Richter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.08.2015 um 07:16 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
On 2015-08-06 19:26, Heiko Richter wrote:
Though back then I was still building bind 32-bit, and the
hardware as much slower. A full signing was
Hello, all.
I'm pretty new to BIND, and am tasked with monitoring several BIND server. A
script is in place that runs hourly, via cron, looking for any anomalies in
named.log. Here's the essence of the script:
grep -i -E ': error: '|grep -i -E -v 'view external: update |view external:
zone t
On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Dimitri Yioulos wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> I’m pretty new to BIND, and am tasked with monitoring several BIND server. A
> script is in place that runs hourly, via cron, looking for any anomalies in
> named.log. Here’s the essence of the script:
>
> grep -i -E ':
Thanks, Charles!
Are the socket errors related to IPv6? If not, what do those mean?
Dimitri
From: Charles Swiger [mailto:cswi...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Dimitri Yioulos
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Log output questions
On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Dimit
If IPv6 were disabled, named wouldn’t even get that far, trying to use it.
I saw speculation on another forum that these messages are caused by morons
using records that point to “fe80::”, possibly as a misguided attempt to
thwart malware. Although that’s legal to put into DNS, it’s not a l
Link is broken I think Im still interested, can i take a look
in other place ?
On 05/08/15 07:49, Eivind Olsen wrote:
On ti., 2015-08-04 at 16:01 -0300, Leandro wrote:
Hello , guys , im thinking about getting my bind statistics on
cacti.
Im looking for some parser script but so far I
Wow, you gave me a very nice tip Rob.
Now Im really interested in getting json format.
I will begin by updating to 9.10
Regards.
LEo.
On 04/08/15 16:38, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 04:01:56PM -0300, Leandro wrote:
Hello , guys , im thinking about getting my bind statistics
on cact
On 2015-08-07 10:08, Heiko Richter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.08.2015 um 08:52 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
Gjust noticed that about 12 hours ago, the business office
person finally update our KSK with registrar. (where window was
last month.)
Wel
On 08/08/2015 01:23, Heiko Richter wrote:
> The "spf2.0/pra ?all" is SenderID, where "pra" forces the DMARC server
> to check only the Envelope-Sender against "v=spf1 mx -all". If you
> don't set that, SPF will always check both Envelope-From and Header-From.
>
>> Note that it's the SenderID
On 2015-08-07 07:34, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> From: "Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng."
>
>> OTOH, we have caved on adding systems that aren't 'ours'...though how much
>> of
>> Office365 is actually 'ours'but I think we currently have a couple
>> includes for mass emailing solutions or our surv
Hmm, wonder if I should upgrade my stats collector for cacti.
It had bee a while since I looked at my cacti, a I know there was a bunch of
graphs not working on it
But, bind stats is still workingagainst the latest 9.9despite the
graph titles of "Bind 9.6"
Before this script, I
Am 08.08.2015 um 05:13 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
So, when we were with this provider, our SPF had exclusive pool as good,
but included the other pool prefixed with '~'
can we stop that foolish discussion on the named list?
that above is pure nonsense - your DOMAIN has either a strict
21 matches
Mail list logo
