On 10/18/2014 4:41 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:15:16 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You obviously don't understand. MX records identify MTAs - that is,
>> machines which can receive email. MUAs cannot do that.
>>
>> To identify an MUA with an MX record would be a violation o
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:15:16 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> You obviously don't understand. MX records identify MTAs - that is,
> machines which can receive email. MUAs cannot do that.
>
> To identify an MUA with an MX record would be a violation of the
> domain name system.
>
And I'm reaso
On 10/16/2014 9:25 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/12/2014 10:24 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records. Anti-spam routines
>>>
>>> Who prevents a MUA from having an MX record and sending a HELO that
>>> matches th
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/12/2014 10:24 PM, lee wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records. Anti-spam routines
>>
>> Who prevents a MUA from having an MX record and sending a HELO that
>> matches the RDNS entry? And what are these "other th
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:10:50PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> And they still have their servers misconfigured?
As I said, that's how it was when I last worked in the team
which ran the mail gateways. I dion't care to check what the
situation is now. I don't accept your characterisation that
the
On 10/13/2014 10:36 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 08:28:32AM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Which ones? Specific names, please.
>
> Newcastle University, UK, at least when I worked in that section
> last (a few years ago), for one.
>
>
And they still have their servers
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 08:28:32AM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Which ones? Specific names, please.
Newcastle University, UK, at least when I worked in that section
last (a few years ago), for one.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscrib
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:11:24AM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 8:55 AM, Joe wrote:
> > I've been doing this for fifteen years, Jerry.
>
> Only 15 years, Joe? I've got over twice that (actually closer to three
> times now). I was on Arpanet before there was TCP/IP, back in the 70'
On 10/13/2014 9:49 AM, Mark Carroll wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 8:18 AM, Erwan David wrote:
> (snip)
>>> That's an error and completely idiot : big service provider use
>>> different MTAs for inbound (with MX records pointing to them) and
>>> outbound email.
>>
>> Which ones
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/13/2014 8:18 AM, Erwan David wrote:
(snip)
>> That's an error and completely idiot : big service provider use
>> different MTAs for inbound (with MX records pointing to them) and
>> outbound email.
>
> Which ones? Specific names, please.
For instance, legitimate ma
On 10/13/2014 8:55 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:19:37 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 5:43 AM, Joe wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:32:40 +0100
>>> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Among other things
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:19:37 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 5:43 AM, Joe wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:32:40 +0100
> > Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
> >>
On 10/13/2014 8:18 AM, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 13/10/2014 14:14, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>> On 10/13/2014 2:32 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
>>> Not necessarily. In the absence
On 10/13/2014 5:43 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:32:40 +0100
> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
>>
>> Not necessarily. In the absence of an MX record an A record is
>> per
Le 13/10/2014 14:14, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
> On 10/13/2014 2:32 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
>> Not necessarily. In the absence of an MX record an A record is perfectly
>> leg
On 10/13/2014 2:32 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
>
> Not necessarily. In the absence of an MX record an A record is perfectly
> legitimate.
>
>
Legitimate MTAs have MX records.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:32:40 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
>
> Not necessarily. In the absence of an MX record an A record is
> perfectly legitimate.
>
>
And as I've point
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:24 AM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records. Anti-spam routines
>
> Who prevents a MUA from having an MX record and sending a HELO that
> matches the RDNS entry? And what are these "other things" you're
> referrin
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records.
Not necessarily. In the absence of an MX record an A record is perfectly
legitimate.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On 10/12/2014 10:24 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records. Anti-spam routines
>
> Who prevents a MUA from having an MX record and sending a HELO that
> matches the RDNS entry? And what are these "other things" you're
> referring to?
>
Jerry Stuckle writes:
>> On 10/12/2014 9:56 AM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> If you don't know the difference between an MTA and an MUA, there is no
>>> way I can help you.
>>
>> I'm not asking what the difference is but what difference it makes when
>> this setting is involved.
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records. Anti-spam routines
Who prevents a MUA from having an MX record and sending a HELO that
matches the RDNS entry? And what are these "other things" you're
referring to?
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemon
On 10/12/2014 1:37 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 12 Oct 2014 at 15:56:05 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> If you don't know the difference between an MTA and an MUA, there is no
>>> way I can help you.
>>
>> I'm not asking what the difference is but what difference it makes when
>>
On 10/12/2014 10:18 AM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/8/2014 8:42 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
On 10/6/2014 7:30 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> For instance, MUAs typically connect on port 587 (at least that is the
>> recommendat
On Sun 12 Oct 2014 at 15:56:05 +0200, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
> > If you don't know the difference between an MTA and an MUA, there is no
> > way I can help you.
>
> I'm not asking what the difference is but what difference it makes when
> this setting is involved. Can you provide
On 10/12/2014 9:56 AM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/8/2014 8:17 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>>>dc_relay_nets
>>> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
>>
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/8/2014 8:42 PM, lee wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> On 10/6/2014 7:30 PM, lee wrote:
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> For instance, MUAs typically connect on port 587 (at least that is the
> recommendation), while MTAs always use port 25. Additiona
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/8/2014 8:17 PM, lee wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>dc_relay_nets
>> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
>>
>> That looks ideal, doesn't it?
>>>
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:32:12 +1300
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:00:59AM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:35:22 +1300
> > Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 07:41:06PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > > > Even fetchmail connects to the MTA on its own
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:00:59AM +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:35:22 +1300
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 07:41:06PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > > Even fetchmail connects to the MTA on its own host by SMTP.
> >
> > How have you got yours configured? fetchmail con
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 22:41:29 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 8:17 PM, lee wrote:
> >
> > Ok, and what difference does this actually make?
> >
> >
>
> If you don't know the difference between an MTA and an MUA, there is
> no way I can help you.
>
Humans generally do, the point is
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 18:35:22 +1300
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 07:41:06PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > Even fetchmail connects to the MTA on its own host by SMTP.
>
> How have you got yours configured? fetchmail connects using the pop3
> protocol in my configuration.
>
Yes, and
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 07:41:06PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> Even fetchmail connects to the MTA on its own host by SMTP.
How have you got yours configured? fetchmail connects using the pop3
protocol in my configuration.
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who ar
On 10/8/2014 8:42 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 7:30 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
For instance, MUAs typically connect on port 587 (at least that is the
recommendation), while MTAs always use port 25. Additionally, MUAs
should always be v
On 10/8/2014 8:17 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
>dc_relay_nets
> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
>
> That looks ideal, doesn't it?
>
>
Right. But he's
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
dc_relay_nets
A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
That looks ideal, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Right. But he's not running multiple MTAs - he only has the on
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/6/2014 7:30 PM, lee wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> For instance, MUAs typically connect on port 587 (at least that is the
>>> recommendation), while MTAs always use port 25. Additionally, MUAs
>>> should always be validated with signon/password, to prevent
On Wed 08 Oct 2014 at 14:49:36 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 1:41 PM, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 08 Oct 2014 at 13:00:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/8/2014 7:55 AM, Brian wrote:
> >>>
> >>> By definition an MTA will transport mail. It will do this for whatever
> >>> talks
On 10/8/2014 1:41 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 08 Oct 2014 at 13:00:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2014 7:55 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> By definition an MTA will transport mail. It will do this for whatever
>>> talks nicely to it (telnet or netcat would do). Exim has no idea whether
>>> it
On 10/8/2014 1:25 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8 Oct 2014, at 18:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Do you also allow your users to log into your systems via ssh or telnet
>> with no root password?
>
> Of course not. That's not even remotely the same thing. Don't be ludicrous.
>
>>
>>
On Wed 08 Oct 2014 at 13:00:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 7:55 AM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > By definition an MTA will transport mail. It will do this for whatever
> > talks nicely to it (telnet or netcat would do). Exim has no idea whether
> > it is communicating with an MUA or an MTA
> On 8 Oct 2014, at 18:03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Do you also allow your users to log into your systems via ssh or telnet
> with no root password?
Of course not. That's not even remotely the same thing. Don't be ludicrous.
>
> You claim the likelyhood is low - but are you sure about that?
On 10/8/2014 8:32 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:28PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> And how can you be positive your network is secure? For instance, you
>> don't have a configuration error, a bug in a router, an access point
>> with weak encryption... the list of po
On 10/8/2014 7:55 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 07 Oct 2014 at 22:25:01 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
>dc_relay_nets
> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
>
> That looks ideal, doesn't it?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:28PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> And how can you be positive your network is secure? For instance, you
>> don't have a configuration error, a bug in a router, an access point
>> with weak encryption... the
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:28PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> And how can you be positive your network is secure? For instance, you
> don't have a configuration error, a bug in a router, an access point
> with weak encryption... the list of potential holes is almost endless.
The likelyhood of
On Tue 07 Oct 2014 at 22:25:01 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
> > Jerry Stuckle writes:
> >
> >>>dc_relay_nets
> >>> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
> >>>
> >>> That looks ideal, doesn't it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Right. But he's
On 10/6/2014 4:19 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:38:33 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> That's very interesting - because I don't have any networks specified
>> in any dc_relay_nets - yet my email goes out (and comes in) just fine.
>>
>
> Indeed. My server isn't listening on
On 10/6/2014 7:30 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> For instance, MUAs typically connect on port 587 (at least that is the
>> recommendation), while MTAs always use port 25. Additionally, MUAs
>> should always be validated with signon/password, to prevent the server
>> from becoming an
On 10/6/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>>>dc_relay_nets
>>> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
>>>
>>> That looks ideal, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. But he's not running multiple MTAs - he only has the one, as he
>> already indicated.
>
>
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:00:38 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:41:21PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > You want to see off-topic pedantry on a Debian list? Here is an
> > excerpt:
>
> Not really ;) that's why I was trying to nip this one in the bud...
>
>
I thought that was a ra
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:41:21PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> You want to see off-topic pedantry on a Debian list? Here is an excerpt:
Not really ;) that's why I was trying to nip this one in the bud...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> For instance, MUAs typically connect on port 587 (at least that is the
> recommendation), while MTAs always use port 25. Additionally, MUAs
> should always be validated with signon/password, to prevent the server
> from becoming an open relay.
1: You would have to requir
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> Those who think Exim is easy to configure for a secure system don't
> understand it.
Exim is very easy to configure. Did you ever try to configure sendmail?
--
Hallowed are the Debians!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subjec
Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>dc_relay_nets
>> A list of machines for which we serve as smarthost.
>>
>> That looks ideal, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>
> Right. But he's not running multiple MTAs - he only has the one, as he
> already indicated.
Does it make a difference for this setting whet
Harry Putnam writes:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
>> networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
>> running on those networks?
>
> Good question and apparently thee is no reason. It stemmed from a deep
> se
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> You are only making the setup more complicated. You generally only need
> one MTA on the network.
When you don't have an MTA on every machine, then how do you make sure
that messages generated there (e. g. by cron jobs) can be delivered?
--
Hallowed are the Debians!
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:38:33 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
>
> That's very interesting - because I don't have any networks specified
> in any dc_relay_nets - yet my email goes out (and comes in) just fine.
>
Indeed. My server isn't listening on 587, and my MUAs all use 25. One
might suppose
On 10/6/2014 2:41 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:06:57 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's true - but he has ONLY ONE MTA ON HIS NETWORK. So there are no
>> other hosts to relay for.
>
> You only need one Internet-facing MTA. It's normal for Windows hosts
> not to have an MT
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:06:57 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> That's true - but he has ONLY ONE MTA ON HIS NETWORK. So there are no
> other hosts to relay for.
You only need one Internet-facing MTA. It's normal for Windows hosts
not to have an MTA at all, and it's common for MTAs on Linux hosts
On 10/6/2014 1:06 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 11:05:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 10:25 AM, Brian wrote:
>>> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:04:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
On 10/5/2014 11:31 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Good point. Just to be pedantic
On 10/6/2014 1:07 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 11:01:16 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 10:26 AM, Brian wrote:
>>> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:09:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
BTW - what's wrong with just using your ISP's MTA? There are definite
advantages -
On 10/6/2014 1:10 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:01:16 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Then why are you suggesting he set up dc_relay_nets?
>
> The advantages and disadvantages of using a local network smarthost are
> neither here nor there, and depend entirely on circumstances
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:21:48 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:04:35PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > Argument from Repetition with an undertone of Argument from
> > Authority and lightly seasoned with misdirection. I've not seen
> > that in a long time. It's enough to make grown
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:04:35PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> Argument from Repetition with an undertone of Argument from Authority
> and lightly seasoned with misdirection. I've not seen that in a long
> time. It's enough to make grown men weep.
To be fair, neither of the posters in this sub-thread ar
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:01:16 -0400
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Then why are you suggesting he set up dc_relay_nets?
The advantages and disadvantages of using a local network smarthost are
neither here nor there, and depend entirely on circumstances and
preference.
*If* exim4 is being used as a
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 11:01:16 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 10:26 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:09:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> BTW - what's wrong with just using your ISP's MTA? There are definite
> >> advantages - like not having Port 25 blocked by your
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 11:05:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 10:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:04:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/5/2014 11:31 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Good point. Just to be pedantic all MTAs act as relays, but I think th
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 10:58:59 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 10:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:06:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> And there are people who think that setting up an MTA correctly is easy,
> >> and then turn around and prove they have no idea w
On 10/6/2014 10:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:04:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2014 11:31 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>>
>>> Good point. Just to be pedantic all MTAs act as relays, but I think the
>>> term being talked about is "open relay" IOW it's "open" for anybod
On 10/6/2014 10:26 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:09:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 5:41 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>> Joel Rees writes:
>>>
> So they would all be sending mail by way of server host.
>
> I guess that is not what is meant by relaying?
On 10/6/2014 10:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:06:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2014 8:05 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that the OP is going to have something like 192.168.2.0/24 for
>>> dc_relay_nets. Even if exim was listening on an external interface (an
>>> empty
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:09:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 5:41 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > Joel Rees writes:
> >
> >>> So they would all be sending mail by way of server host.
> >>>
> >>> I guess that is not what is meant by relaying?
> >>
> >> I think that's relaying, but not op
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:06:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/6/2014 8:05 AM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > Note that the OP is going to have something like 192.168.2.0/24 for
> > dc_relay_nets. Even if exim was listening on an external interface (an
> > empty dc_local_interfaces) exim is not set up
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 09:04:14 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/5/2014 11:31 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > Good point. Just to be pedantic all MTAs act as relays, but I think the
> > term being talked about is "open relay" IOW it's "open" for anybody to
> > use, spammers, guy next door et
On 10/6/2014 5:41 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Joel Rees writes:
>
>>> So they would all be sending mail by way of server host.
>>>
>>> I guess that is not what is meant by relaying?
>>
>> I think that's relaying, but not open relay (if you get it set up right).
>>
>> But you should consider why you
On 10/6/2014 8:05 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 16:31:52 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 11:16:18PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>>
>>> So they would all be sending mail by way of server host.
>>>
>>> I guess that is not what is meant by relaying?
>>
>> Good po
On 10/5/2014 11:31 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 11:16:18PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>
>>> The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
>>> networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
>>> running on thos
On 10/5/2014 11:16 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
>> networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
>> running on those networks?
>
> Good question and apparently thee is no reason. It st
On Dom, 05 Out 2014, Harry Putnam wrote:
when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
of the questions that are confusing to me...
[snip]
While this does not answer your questions directly, have you read the
documentation for the Debian exim package?
http://pkg-exim4
On Mon 06 Oct 2014 at 16:31:52 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 11:16:18PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >
> > So they would all be sending mail by way of server host.
> >
> > I guess that is not what is meant by relaying?
>
> Good point. Just to be pedantic all MTAs act a
On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 23:16:18 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
> > The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
> > networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
> > running on those networks?
>
> Good question and apparently thee i
Joel Rees writes:
>> So they would all be sending mail by way of server host.
>>
>> I guess that is not what is meant by relaying?
>
> I think that's relaying, but not open relay (if you get it set up right).
>
> But you should consider why you want to send out through a central server,
> unless
2014/10/06 12:16 "Harry Putnam" :
>
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
> > The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
> > networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
> > running on those networks?
>
> Good question and apparently thee is no reason. It stemmed
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 09:12:19PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 14:24:47 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> > Simon Hollenbach writes:
> >
> > > You should leave the relay-list empty unless you really know what you
> > > are doing. Mail to remote hosts should generally only be process
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 11:16:18PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
> > The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
> > networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
> > running on those networks?
>
> Good question and apparently the
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> The first question - why do you think you need to relay to other
> networks, even if they're your own? Do you have other SMTP servers
> running on those networks?
Good question and apparently thee is no reason. It stemmed from a deep
seated confusion about what relaying
On 10/5/2014 7:56 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/5/2014 4:38 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 16:16:22 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
On 10/5/2014 12:01 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm leaving out some major piece of the smtp puz
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/5/2014 4:38 PM, Brian wrote:
>> On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 16:16:22 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/5/2014 12:01 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm leaving out some major piece of the smtp puzzle
but not at all sure what it might be.
>>>
On 10/5/2014 4:38 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 16:16:22 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/5/2014 12:01 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure I'm leaving out some major piece of the smtp puzzle
>>> but not at all sure what it might be.
>>
>> Two things here:
>>
>> First o
On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 16:16:22 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/5/2014 12:01 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I'm leaving out some major piece of the smtp puzzle
> > but not at all sure what it might be.
>
> Two things here:
>
> First of all, are you sure your ISP allows conne
On 10/5/2014 12:01 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
> of the questions that are confusing to me...
>
> The current one I'm stumbling over is
>
> 1) A question about listing of host IPs the smtp listener will
> listen for...
>
>
On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 14:24:47 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Simon Hollenbach writes:
>
> > You should leave the relay-list empty unless you really know what you
> > are doing. Mail to remote hosts should generally only be processed for
> > users that have authenticated to your SMTP-server.
>
>
On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 14:16:45 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 12:01:48 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >
> >> when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
> >> of the questions that are confusing to me...
> >>
> >> The current one I'
Simon Hollenbach writes:
> Hello Harry,
>
> On 05/10/14 18:01, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
>> of the questions that are confusing to me...
>>
>> The current one I'm stumbling over is
>>
>> 1) A question about listing of host IPs
Brian writes:
> On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 12:01:48 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
>> when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
>> of the questions that are confusing to me...
>>
>> The current one I'm stumbling over is
>>
>> 1) A question about listing of host IPs the sm
On 05/10/14 19:26, Simon Hollenbach wrote:
>> 1) A question about listing of host IPs the smtp listener will
>> listen for...
> All the hosts listed here will be able to send mails to your server.
Sorry, Brian is right. I think the config option you refer to is:
"IP-addresses to listen on for
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014, Harry Putnam wrote:
> The current one I'm stumbling over is
>
> 1) A question about listing of host IPs the smtp listener will
> listen for...
This almost certainly reads "listen on", not "listen for".
> And then later on there is
> 2) A question about which hosts you
Hello Harry,
On 05/10/14 18:01, Harry Putnam wrote:
> when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
> of the questions that are confusing to me...
>
> The current one I'm stumbling over is
>
> 1) A question about listing of host IPs the smtp listener will
> listen f
On Sun 05 Oct 2014 at 12:01:48 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> when running `dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' I've run accross a few
> of the questions that are confusing to me...
>
> The current one I'm stumbling over is
>
> 1) A question about listing of host IPs the smtp listener will
> li
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
