On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:23:43 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
seems something is wrong with your (or maybe their) reverse DNS
resolution...
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
This is what I had:
[siefke@sisi-dell ~]$ nslookup 195.128.103.214
214.103.128.195.in-addr.arpa
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 08:38:53PM +0100, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
> > Why did you stop unbound? Presumably it provides the recursive
> > service on 127.0.0.1, which is listed below...
>
> It work not.
Then figure out how to make it work. That should be your one and
only nameserver.
> > >
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:20:43 -0500
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Why did you stop unbound? Presumably it provides the recursive
> service on 127.0.0.1, which is listed below...
It work not. That's why so a line direct to nameserver and it work
also not.
> > Nov 19 19:58:20 netcup.silviosiefke.com p
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 08:13:49PM +0100, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
> I use unbound.
>
> I have stop unbound an use the dns direct with resolv.conf.
Why did you stop unbound? Presumably it provides the recursive
service on 127.0.0.1, which is listed below...
> $ cat /etc/resolv.conf
> namese
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:08:47 +0100 (CET)
Bernardo Reino wrote:
> $ dig -x 81.91.160.182
> office.denic.de. 3600IN A 81.91.160.182
>
> $ dig office.denic.de
> office.denic.de. 3508IN A 81.91.160.182
>
> which looks OK. See if your resolver also produces the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:21:23AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> Generally, a mail server should have a caching recursive resolver
> running locally: either on the same machine or the same truly local
> network.
+1, especially for running on the MTA host itself, on the loopback
interface, with only
On 18 Nov 2019, at 15:38, Gregory Heytings wrote:
replace the contents of /etc/resolv.conf by:
nameserver 8.8.8.8
nameserver 8.8.4.4
your problem will likely be solved.
Note that doing this (using Google's public DNS service) will kill the
effectiveness of DNSBLs and of anti-spam tools like
Now I try to send mail to box and what happen:
Nov 18 17:12:35 netcup.silviosiefke.com postfix/smtpd[6215]: NOQUEUE:
reject: RCPT from unknown[81.91.160.182]: 450 4.7.25 Client host
rejected: cannot find your hostname, [81.91.160.182];
from= to=
proto=ESMTP helo=
This means that a rev
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:23:43 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
cannot find your hostname indicated reject_unknown_client_hostname hit.
Ah thank you this what I had search.
seems something is wrong with your (or maybe their) reverse DNS
re
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:23:43 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> cannot find your hostname indicated reject_unknown_client_hostname hit.
Ah thank you this what I had search.
> seems something is wrong with your (or maybe their) reverse DNS
> resolution...
This is what I had:
[siefke@sisi-de
On 18.11.19 17:16, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
Now I try to send mail to box and what happen:
Nov 18 17:12:35 netcup.silviosiefke.com postfix/smtpd[6215]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[81.91.160.182]: 450 4.7.25 Client host rejected: cannot find your hostname,
[81.91.160.182]; from=
to=
Scappatura Rocco:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> ...
> check_client_access proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-check-client-access.cf
> ...
Wietse
brian moore a écrit :
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:22:44 -0500
> Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> No. The log entry clearly shows that
>> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au is the sender and local postfix
>> is the receiver. The local postfix rejects the delivery attempt.
>>
>> This is almost certainly a "spoofe
On 4/5/2010 5:19 PM, Voytek Eymont wrote:
On Tue, April 6, 2010 4:22 am, Noel Jones wrote:
Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au[203.63.86.26]: 554 5.7.1
: Client host rejected:
sender address does not match client hostname; from=
to=
On Tue, April 6, 2010 4:22 am, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>>> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au[203.63.86.26]: 554 5.7.1
>>> : Client host rejected:
>>> sender address does not match client hostname; from=
>>> to= proto=ESMTP
>>> helo=
>
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:22:44 -0500
Noel Jones wrote:
> No. The log entry clearly shows that
> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au is the sender and local postfix
> is the receiver. The local postfix rejects the delivery attempt.
>
> This is almost certainly a "spoofed freemail" rule added to
> the
On 4/5/2010 1:10 PM, brian moore wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:27:57 +1000 (EST)
"Voytek Eymont" wrote:
I just noticed this in the logs, which might be from a valid sender to a
valid user on this server:
Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
fep06.mfe.bur.connect.co
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:27:57 +1000 (EST)
"Voytek Eymont" wrote:
> I just noticed this in the logs, which might be from a valid sender to a
> valid user on this server:
>
> Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au[203.63.86.26]: 554 5.7.1
> :
Voytek Eymont:
> I just noticed this in the logs, which might be from a valid sender to a
> valid user on this server:
>
> Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au[203.63.86.26]: 554 5.7.1
> : Client host rejected: sender
> address does not m
19 matches
Mail list logo
