Re: OT: spf2.0 (was Re: mx bind ip)

2012-03-11 Thread Noel Butler
On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 11:01 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > hm, since it contains the same data as spf1 and even hotmail itself > has only spf1 i tend to ignore it also in the future > Just had a look and you're right, but as it improved our deliverable success rates to hotmail many fold a f

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-11 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:01:00AM +1000, Nick Edwards wrote: > I have tried smtp_bind_address(6) but for some reason, although it > uses the correct IP, the relays are denied for spf failure on the > main server, even though they are all permitted in spf RR, ok, evident > by fact that if I remove

Re: OT: spf2.0 (was Re: mx bind ip)

2012-03-11 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 11.03.2012 09:44, schrieb Noel Butler: > On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 22:33 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >have you some good documentation/examples >> >since i am the developer of our admin-backends >> >it should be easy to integrate any record-types >> > >> I wouldn't worry too much about it. Yo

Re: OT: spf2.0 (was Re: mx bind ip)

2012-03-11 Thread Noel Butler
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 22:33 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >no because i did not notice about spf2.0 until now > >and do not find anything about it on openspf.org > >http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax > > > >have you some good documentation/examples > >since i am the developer of our admin

Re: OT: spf2.0 (was Re: mx bind ip)

2012-03-10 Thread Scott Kitterman
Reindl Harald wrote: > > >Am 10.03.2012 02:08, schrieb Nick Edwards: >>> thelounge.net. 86400 IN SPF "v=spf1 >ip4:91.118.73.15 >>> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17 >>> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30 >>> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -

OT: spf2.0 (was Re: mx bind ip)

2012-03-10 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 10.03.2012 02:08, schrieb Nick Edwards: >> thelounge.net. 86400 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 >> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17 >> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30 >> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -all" >> >> thelounge.net.

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-10 Thread Nick Edwards
On 3/10/12, Noel Butler wrote: > On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 11:08 +1000, Nick Edwards wrote: > >> On 3/10/12, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> > what type of entries are you using in your SPF record? >> > i found out that a/mx entries sometimes making troubles and since >> > we changed our backend to use onl

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Noel Butler
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 11:08 +1000, Nick Edwards wrote: > On 3/10/12, Reindl Harald wrote: > > what type of entries are you using in your SPF record? > > i found out that a/mx entries sometimes making troubles and since > > we changed our backend to use only ip and let the backend > > translate s

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Nick Edwards
On 3/10/12, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 09.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Nick Edwards: >> On 3/10/12, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>> >> >> logs are no good because it simply says rejected (ip) spf -all method. >> >> all other settings wont help either since the two new settings smtp >> bind address and

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Nick Edwards
On 3/10/12, Wietse Venema wrote: > Nick Edwards: >> Is the smtp bind address correct method? or inet_interfaces? > > Everybody already knows that smtp_bind_address and smtp_bind_address6 > set the correct IP address for SENDING mail. > > If the RECEIVING server flags an error for the correct IP ad

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 09.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Nick Edwards: > On 3/10/12, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> >> Am 09.03.2012 16:01, schrieb Nick Edwards: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I gave a secondary mx with 2 ipv4 and 2 ipv6 ip's. >>> I have dns'd one of each protocol for mx and ns >>> Trying to get postfix to play nice with mx

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Wietse Venema
Nick Edwards: > Is the smtp bind address correct method? or inet_interfaces? Everybody already knows that smtp_bind_address and smtp_bind_address6 set the correct IP address for SENDING mail. If the RECEIVING server flags an error for the correct IP address, then THAT is the problem you need to f

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Ben Rosengart
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:19:55AM +1000, Nick Edwards wrote: > > Is the smtp bind address correct method? or inet_interfaces? smtp_bind_address is for sending, inet_interfaces for receiving. I think you will get better help if you get down to specifics. Post the relevant IP addresses, the SPF r

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Nick Edwards
On 3/10/12, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 09.03.2012 16:01, schrieb Nick Edwards: >> Hi, >> >> I gave a secondary mx with 2 ipv4 and 2 ipv6 ip's. >> I have dns'd one of each protocol for mx and ns >> Trying to get postfix to play nice with mx on outbound. hostname, >> mynetworks etc all setup righ

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Nick Edwards
On 3/10/12, Wietse Venema wrote: > Nick Edwards: >> I have tried smtp_bind_address(6) but for some reason, although it >> uses the correct IP, the relays are denied for spf failure on the >> main server, even though they are all permitted in spf RR, ok, evident > > So we know that Postfix sends m

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 09.03.2012 16:01, schrieb Nick Edwards: > Hi, > > I gave a secondary mx with 2 ipv4 and 2 ipv6 ip's. > I have dns'd one of each protocol for mx and ns > Trying to get postfix to play nice with mx on outbound. hostname, > mynetworks etc all setup right. > I have tried smtp_bind_address(6) but

Re: mx bind ip

2012-03-09 Thread Wietse Venema
Nick Edwards: > I have tried smtp_bind_address(6) but for some reason, although it > uses the correct IP, the relays are denied for spf failure on the > main server, even though they are all permitted in spf RR, ok, evident So we know that Postfix sends mail with the correct IP address but you ha