On 2017-01-11 (12:20 MST), Larry Kuenning wrote:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this whole discussion of "/128" based on the
> assumption that this notation means a block of 2^128 addresses?
No, a /128 is a single IP out of the 2^128 block space. Just like a single IPv4
is a /32, while a “
> Larry Kuenning kirjoitti 11.01.2017 kello 21:20:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this whole discussion of "/128" based on the
> assumption that this notation means a block of 2^128 addresses? And isn't
> 2^128 the size of the entire IPv6 address space? There would be nothing left
> ove
Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this whole discussion of "/128" based on
the assumption that this notation means a block of 2^128 addresses? And
isn't 2^128 the size of the entire IPv6 address space? There would be
nothing left over after designating a block of that size.
Doesn't "/128" mean
On 2017-01-10 (09:16 MST), Jan Ceuleers wrote:
>
> On 09/01/17 21:06, @lbutlr wrote:
>> 640K RAM ought to be enough for everybody.
>>> No even similar. The address space for 128bit is in the general
>>> neighborhood of the number of atoms in the universe.
>> Sorry, that's 256 bits. 128 bits is t
On 09/01/17 21:06, @lbutlr wrote:
> 640K RAM ought to be enough for everybody.
>> No even similar. The address space for 128bit is in the general neighborhood
>> of the number of atoms in the universe.
> Sorry, that's 256 bits. 128 bits is the number of stars in
> 100,000,000,000,000,000 universe
> On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:28, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> On 09 Jan 2017, at 10:50, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
>> On 09/01/17 16:58, @lbutlr wrote:
>>> (1.8x10E19 is enough address space for every single person on the planet to
>>> have two and a half billion IPs to themselves).
>> 640K RAM ought to be enough f
On 09 Jan 2017, at 10:50, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> On 09/01/17 16:58, @lbutlr wrote:
>> (1.8x10E19 is enough address space for every single person on the planet to
>> have two and a half billion IPs to themselves).
> 640K RAM ought to be enough for everybody.
No even similar. The address space for
On 09/01/17 16:58, @lbutlr wrote:
> (1.8x10E19 is enough address space for every single person on the planet to
> have two and a half billion IPs to themselves).
640K RAM ought to be enough for everybody.
On 29 Dec 2016, at 03:53, Peter wrote:
> Linode assigns a single static IPv6 /128
That seems like incorrect behavior. 2^64 is 1.8 10E19 addresses. There is
absolutely no reason to mask to 128bits, it's absurd.
(1.8x10E19 is enough address space for every single person on the planet to
have two
On 2016-12-28 09:36, Alice Wonder wrote:
On 12/28/2016 12:28 AM, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/28/2016 08:32 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
reverse DNS is properly set up.
Postfix only listens on the local host.
Linux firewall drops anything
On 29/12/16 01:32, John Fawcett wrote:
>> The IP is relatively new to me, about two months, but it was not on
>> the list before as I use Spamhaus on my other mail servers and mail
>> from it was not being rejected until yesterday.
>>
>> I did go through the manual removal process and that worked,
On 12/28/2016 09:36 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 12/28/2016 12:28 AM, John Fawcett wrote:
>> On 12/28/2016 08:32 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
>>> Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
>>>
>>> reverse DNS is properly set up.
>>> Postfix only listens on the local host.
>>> Linux f
Alice Wonder:
> Static IP, Linode. Only the IPv6 was listed, the IPv4 was not, but it
> seems that postfix usually chooses IPv6 when the receiving MX resolves
> on IPv6. And that's probably the correct behavior.
smtp_address_preference (default: any)
...
Postfix SMTP client add
y 20€ a month to be on a white list!
Spamrl.com isn't even on the mxtool checker.
Original Message
From: Alice Wonder
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 11:32 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Avoiding spam blacklists
Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
reverse DNS
Static IP, Linode. Only the IPv6 was listed, the IPv4 was not, but it
seems that postfix usually chooses IPv6 when the receiving MX resolves
on IPv6. And that's probably the correct behavior.
On 12/28/2016 12:18 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote:
Is your mailserver's external ip static or dynamic? I am
On 12/28/2016 12:28 AM, John Fawcett wrote:
On 12/28/2016 08:32 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
reverse DNS is properly set up.
Postfix only listens on the local host.
Linux firewall drops anything not to port 80, 443, or a custom high
numb
On 12/28/2016 08:32 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
> Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
>
> reverse DNS is properly set up.
> Postfix only listens on the local host.
> Linux firewall drops anything not to port 80, 443, or a custom high
> number port I use for SSH.
>
> This post
Is your mailserver's external ip static or dynamic? I am afraid that
mail servers from dynamic ips always get listed as spambots even when
using SPF, DKIM, correct rDNS etc. The solutions in this case are
either to get your isp to allocate to you a static ip (not all isps
offer this however), set u
Virtual machine for a web application, it is still in testing.
reverse DNS is properly set up.
Postfix only listens on the local host.
Linux firewall drops anything not to port 80, 443, or a custom high
number port I use for SSH.
This postfix is not an open relay, or a relay for anything on th
19 matches
Mail list logo
