Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> mouss wrote:
>
>>> since the banner usually presents the same hostname as HELO/EHLO,
>>> the test can still be useful.
>
>> I am about the "usually". consider a setup
> [examples snipped...]
>
> I did consider those setups when I wrote my message. "Usually" is
> *not* the sa
mouss wrote:
since the banner usually presents the same
hostname as HELO/EHLO, the test can still be useful.
I am about the "usually". consider a setup
[examples snipped...]
I did consider those setups when I wrote my message. "Usually" is
*not* the same as "allways" or even "almost allway
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
mouss wrote:
It also confirms that your SMTP banner greeting matches the reverse
DNS.
Who requires this?
The hostname in the banner is usually the same hostname as in
HELO/EHLO, and it's often a good idea to HELO/EHLO with a hostname
that matches RDNS.
You are con
mouss wrote:
It also confirms that your SMTP banner greeting matches the reverse
DNS.
Who requires this?
The hostname in the banner is usually the same hostname as in
HELO/EHLO, and it's often a good idea to HELO/EHLO with a hostname
that matches RDNS.
You are confused.
How so?
(I wa
On Nov 28, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Well, not genuine, or administered by a pompous professional who
thinks
s/pompous/incompetent/
There are gazillions of incompetent "network engineers" out there.
> Ken A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > RFCs say:
> > 1. helo should be a fqdn.
> > 2. you should not reject based on helo.
On 30.11.07 18:33, Graham Murray wrote:
> Not quite. The RFC only says that you should not reject if the helo does
> not match the connecting IP address. It says nothing abou
Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> Vivek Khera wrote:
>
>> On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Mike Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> It also confirms that your SMTP banner greeting matches the reverse
>>> DNS.
>>
>> Who requires this?
>
> The hostname in the banner is usually the same hostname as in
> HELO/EHLO, and it's ofte
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
> >Not quite. The RFC only says that you should not reject if the helo does
> >not match the connecting IP address. It says nothing about rejecting the
> >helo for other reasons - such as not being an fqdn.
>
> I agree. Besides, as much as I preach adher
- Original Message -
>> RFCs say:
>> 1. helo should be a fqdn.
>> 2. you should not reject based on helo.
>
>Not quite. The RFC only says that you should not reject if the helo does
>not match the connecting IP address. It says nothing about rejecting the
>helo for other reasons - such as n
Ken A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RFCs say:
> 1. helo should be a fqdn.
> 2. you should not reject based on helo.
Not quite. The RFC only says that you should not reject if the helo does
not match the connecting IP address. It says nothing about rejecting the
helo for other reasons - such as n
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30.11.07 06:06, Ben Spencer wrote:
Some sendmail milters due look at that banner. And perform lookups on it.
One which comes to mind is milter-spiff (SPF checks). A misconfiguration
host with misleading banner information may also contain other
misconfiguration w
On 30.11.07 06:06, Ben Spencer wrote:
> Some sendmail milters due look at that banner. And perform lookups on it.
> One which comes to mind is milter-spiff (SPF checks). A misconfiguration
> host with misleading banner information may also contain other
> misconfiguration which, while may not allow
message.
---
Benji Spencer
System Administrator
Ph: 312-329-2288
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonas Eckerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:45 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Forward Conformed Reverse DNS troubleshooting
Vivek Khera wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Mike Jackson wrote:
It also confirms that your SMTP banner greeting matches the reverse DNS.
Who requires this?
The hostname in the banner is usually the same hostname as in
HELO/EHLO, and it's often a good idea to HELO/EHLO with a
hostnam
On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Mike Jackson wrote:
It also confirms that your SMTP banner greeting matches the reverse
DNS.
Who requires this?
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
You might want to bookmark this page. Try it out and see if your RDNS is
really correct.
Or another tool from someone who's not trying to sell you something:
http://www.boxcheck.com/
Use the "3-way" check from the middle drop-down. It also confirms
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
quote,
"However what I can't spoof is if you do a lookup on the fake name I return
and it either doesn't resolve or resolves to a different IP address then
you know it's not genuine."
Well, not genuine, or administered by a pompous professional
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 17:01 +0100, Mr Shunz wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 4:47 PM, Bill Randle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm Unless I'm doing something wrong, it doesn't seem to work. It
> > always is reporting an error - even when using your own hostname:
> >
> ehm ... it asks for an ip
On Nov 28, 2007 4:47 PM, Bill Randle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 06:16 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
> >
> > You might want to bookmark this page. Try it out and see if your RDNS is
> > really correct.
>
> Hmmm Unless I'm doi
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 06:16 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
>
> You might want to bookmark this page. Try it out and see if your RDNS is
> really correct.
Hmmm Unless I'm doing something wrong, it doesn't seem to work. It
always is reporting an error
Umm... this is nice, however, your main page doesn't look so good.
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/ returns:
Fedora *Test Page*
Might want to fix that! ;-)
Marc Perkel wrote:
> http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
>
> You might want to bookmark this page. Try it out and see if your
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/rdns.php
You might want to bookmark this page. Try it out and see if your RDNS is
really correct.
22 matches
Mail list logo
