On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:52:04 -0500
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> [204.89.241.253] mail from: <>
> 250 OK
> rcpt to:
> 550 Missing, invalid or expired BATV signature
A long time ago, I was involved with an argument with the RFC-Ignorant
maintainer. The thread starts here:
http://lists.megacity.org
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should reject your email if y
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
Regards,
David.
On 01/02/2011 15:49, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:34 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should reject your email if you are on the rfc-ignorant
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
We add a
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
> rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
We add a small score [1.2 poin
On 2/1/11 9:34 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
because HELO doesn
On 01/02/2011 15:43, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Personally, rejecting a message on the basis of a single criteria is
pretty harsh. You don't need to be the RFC-poli
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse,
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre wrote:
> Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
> Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
* Danita Zanre :
> Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
> Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Enforce how exactly?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Default Server: cache0201.ns.eu.uu.net
Address: 193.79.237.39
> hermes.apache.org
Server: cache0201.ns.eu.uu.net
Address: 193.79.2
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
14 matches
Mail list logo
