LuKreme wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:42, Thomas Gelf wrote:
>
>> the person who did not correctly set up the network is to be blamed,
>> if you have equipment acting as MTA it should be configured the right
>> way, otherwise use a relay server
>
> SHOULD be blamed? Yes. But the blame will f
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 09:44 +0200, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> LuKreme schrieb:
> > On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:42, Thomas Gelf wrote:
> >
> >> the person who did not correctly set up the network is to be blamed,
> >> if you have equipment acting as MTA it should be configured the right
> >> way, oth
LuKreme schrieb:
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:42, Thomas Gelf wrote:
>
>> the person who did not correctly set up the network is to be blamed,
>> if you have equipment acting as MTA it should be configured the right
>> way, otherwise use a relay server
>
> SHOULD be blamed? Yes. But the blame will
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:42, Thomas Gelf wrote:
the person who did not correctly set up the network is to be blamed,
if you have equipment acting as MTA it should be configured the
right
way, otherwise use a relay server
SHOULD be blamed? Yes. But the blame will fall on the mail admin.
"T
Thomas Gelf schrieb:
> brian moore wrote:
>> There is always the "AOL Rule".
>
> Yeah, we are sometimes also using AOL as an example, even if where I
> live nearly nobody is using it...
>
>> (Hotmail and Gmail have similar rules, I just don't know where they
>> spell them out.)
>
> Hotmail: http
brian moore wrote:
> There is always the "AOL Rule".
Yeah, we are sometimes also using AOL as an example, even if where I
live nearly nobody is using it...
> (Hotmail and Gmail have similar rules, I just don't know where they
> spell them out.)
Hotmail: http://postmaster.msn.com/Guidelines.aspx
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:42:03 +0200
Thomas Gelf wrote:
> e) we are a really small ISP, but the largest one in our region. Two
>years ago we decided to be less permissive - and we had to dedicate
>ressources to teach people what they are doing wrong. The result
> has been, that other provid
LuKreme wrote:
> No, you're still not understanding.
>
> Say you have a ... oh, I dunno, a DHCP server/router that your entire
> office network plugs into. And say it has a feature, as so many do, to
> send alerts via email if say the uplink goes down. Now, that email
> configuration is very primi
On 3-Aug-2009, at 15:57, Robert Schetterer wrote:
yes i know many mailling services from big companies
who missed the reverse dns, but its their problem,
after all if they cant get out their mail it should finally bounce to
someone responsable
No, you're still not understanding.
Say you have
Jorey Bump schrieb:
> Robert Schetterer wrote, at 08/03/2009 03:40 PM:
>
>> lost mail to where ? gone universe *g?
>> the mail got rejected at last with a debug code
>> so the sender may take his brain to fix its problem
>> or try to reach you by phone , valid mailservers etc
>> if the sender
Robert Schetterer wrote, at 08/03/2009 03:40 PM:
> lost mail to where ? gone universe *g?
> the mail got rejected at last with a debug code
> so the sender may take his brain to fix its problem
> or try to reach you by phone , valid mailservers etc
> if the sender cant fix it you can simply wh
Jorey Bump schrieb:
> Mikael Bak wrote, at 08/03/2009 10:38 AM:
>
>> I'm currently blocking all attepmts to connect from hosts not having a
>> valid reverse DNS name with "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname".
>>
>> This is very effective for dealing with spam. This is not our only
>> protectio
When I was still managing an email system and got a complaint like
that. I'd actually contact the postmaster for the mail system with
the errors and let them know it's failing. Typically they'd just fix
it right up. Only once did I have someone argue with me over a
misconfigured mail server but
Mikael Bak wrote:
> I'm currently blocking all attepmts to connect from hosts not having a
> valid reverse DNS name with "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname".
> ...
> Nevermind. To make it short: Is it ok to reject such sending servers or
> not? :-)
In my believes using reject_unknown_reverse
Mikael Bak wrote, at 08/03/2009 10:38 AM:
> I'm currently blocking all attepmts to connect from hosts not having a
> valid reverse DNS name with "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname".
>
> This is very effective for dealing with spam. This is not our only
> protection though :-)
>
> Although f
Hi list,
Maybe a little OT, but I thought maybe you guys know how to deal with this.
I'm currently blocking all attepmts to connect from hosts not having a
valid reverse DNS name with "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname".
This is very effective for dealing with spam. This is not our only
pro
16 matches
Mail list logo
