On 2021-05-29 at 10:22:23 UTC-0400 (Sat, 29 May 2021 10:22:23 -0400)
Timo Geusch
is rumored to have said:
The fix/workaround in my case is relatively easy as I mostly need to
update the configuration for my local DNS server. That said, I'm not
sure if postscreen should treat this kind of error
On 30/05/2021 12:47, Laura Smith wrote:
It is a fairly recent change, perhaps a year ago, that they return the .254 and
.255
codes rather than just ignoring the request, as a hint that you need to fix your
configuration.
Seems the change is dated 11/2/2021
(https://www.spamhaus.org/news/ar
> It is a fairly recent change, perhaps a year ago, that they return the .254
> and .255
> codes rather than just ignoring the request, as a hint that you need to fix
> your
> configuration.
>
>
Seems the change is dated 11/2/2021
(https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/807/using-our-public-mi
On 5/29/21 2:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
According to Bastian Blank :
Already addressed it, however I figured it would be worth mentioning on here
as it seem to be a fairly recent change at SpamHaus's end.
No, it is not a recent change. SpamHaus rejects requests via done
public resolvers since a
According to Bastian Blank :
>> Already addressed it, however I figured it would be worth mentioning on here
>> as it seem to be a fairly recent change at SpamHaus's end.
>
>No, it is not a recent change. SpamHaus rejects requests via done
>public resolvers since a long time.
It is a fairly recen
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:55:02AM -0400, Timo Geusch wrote:
> On 5/29/21 11:03 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Timo Geusch:
> > > Based on zen.spamhaus.org's documentation 127.255.255.25[245] are
> > > actually error codes and not indicators of allow/denylisting - in this
> > > case, their error is t
On Saturday, 29 May 2021 16:55, Timo Geusch wrote:
> On 5/29/21 11:03 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Timo Geusch:
> >
> > > Based on zen.spamhaus.org's documentation 127.255.255.25[245] are
> > > actually error codes and not indicators of allow/denylisting - in this
> > > case, their error is tha
On 5/29/21 11:40 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
On 5/29/21 10:22 AM, Timo Geusch wrote:
Based on zen.spamhaus.org's documentation 127.255.255.25[245] are
actually error codes and not indicators of allow/denylisting - in this
case, their error is that I was querying via a public resolver, see link
On 5/29/21 11:03 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Timo Geusch:
Based on zen.spamhaus.org's documentation 127.255.255.25[245] are
actually error codes and not indicators of allow/denylisting - in this
case, their error is that I was querying via a public resolver, see link
here: https://www.spamhaus.org
On 5/29/21 10:22 AM, Timo Geusch wrote:
> Based on zen.spamhaus.org's documentation 127.255.255.25[245] are
> actually error codes and not indicators of allow/denylisting - in this
> case, their error is that I was querying via a public resolver, see link
> here: https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/sec
Timo Geusch:
> Based on zen.spamhaus.org's documentation 127.255.255.25[245] are
> actually error codes and not indicators of allow/denylisting - in this
> case, their error is that I was querying via a public resolver, see link
> here: https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/DNSBL%20Usage#200
So
Hello,
I just noticed this particular behaviour as I was trying to track down
some issues as apparently my mail server was bouncing legitimate emails
from a few senders (including some freebsd mailing lists and also
postfix-users as I discovered afterwards). This is on the FreeBSD port
of Pos
12 matches
Mail list logo
