y, March 29, 2003 7:13 PM
> To: Wil Hatfield - HVHM Customer Care
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
>
>
> See the brand new FAQ entry. :)
>
> http://matt.simerson.net/computing/mail/toaster/faq.shtml
>
> M
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Raboo wrote:
lol ya all :-)
btw matt simerson, if you code hacks to make your smtpd do more loging
like
you said before that you have made it do logging of what kinds of
blocks it
does, please feel free to publish them if you like, if not allready,
The
On Saturday 29 March 2003 14:25, dWi saSonO b wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:53:47 +0100
>
> Lucas Valdeón <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Talking about reverse dns I have a little problem.
> > In the same machine there are several ips. In the first ip .71 there is
> > no service.
> >
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:53:47 +0100
Lucas Valdeón <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Talking about reverse dns I have a little problem.
> In the same machine there are several ips. In the first ip .71 there is no
> service.
> In the second one .72 mail is running ( pop3, smtp ).
> .71 has r
On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 01:53 AM, Lucas Valdeón wrote:
Is correct to send mail from a reverse dns in the same domain, but
different
hostname that MX entry ?
Yes, that would be fine. Mail doesn't have to come from servers that
accept messages.
--
Tom Collins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Talking about reverse dns I have a little problem.
In the same machine there are several ips. In the first ip .71 there is no
service.
In the second one .72 mail is running ( pop3, smtp ).
.71 has reverse dns ( ssh.x.com )
.72 has reverse dns ( mail.x.com )
Qmail send mail from default rout
lol ya all :-)
btw matt simerson, if you code hacks to make your smtpd do more loging like
you said before that you have made it do logging of what kinds of blocks it
does, please feel free to publish them if you like, if not allready,
Greetings /Raboo
P.S. this is probibly one of the top ten bi
Title: RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
As the only other person on this apparently doing this, I thought I'd just weigh in briefly (again) with regards to why we do it. For those folks who're worried about the sanctity of my users email, don't be.
> others think about blocking based on DNS. I haven't done it in quite a
> few years.
Haven't done what, started a flamewar? :-)
(honestly, that is meant to be funny, not an attack)
Regards,
Andrew
> those are all true. the term in contention is "broken". obviously, if a
> mailserver is refusing messages from sites with "even IP addresses"
> (whatever those are, how is an IP address even or odd?) *and the reason for
> that refusal is not known*, then it's broken. If it's been purposely
> con
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 01:35 PM, Tom Collins wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 10:22 AM, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
rather than trumping up your argument with etiquette fascism, how
about pointing out a relevant RFC that backs up your [baseless]
opinion that a mailserver must acc
> Would 208.32.76.233 pass the test?
> It has a revers ptr, but some mail servers block it claiming it does not
> have one.
I dunno, I don't block mail from servers with no reverse DNS, or whose reverse
DNS does not map to the same name as its forward DNS. :-)
Regards,
Andrew
At 10:04 AM 03-27-2003, you wrote:
> diversion. in short: the original claim was baseless. No mailserver is
> broken for refusing messages from sites that have no in-addr.arpa in place.
Please.
"No mailserver is broken for refusing messages from sites run by [ethnic
group]."
"No mailserver is brok
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 01:18 PM, Rick Updegrove wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Simerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:21 AM
Subject: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
I started blocking connections to my
Question...
Would 208.32.76.233 pass the test?
It has a revers ptr, but some mail servers block it claiming it does not
have one.
~jb
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 10:22 AM, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
rather than trumping up your argument with etiquette fascism, how
about pointing out a relevant RFC that backs up your [baseless]
opinion that a mailserver must accept messages from a site without
reverse DNS?
ever heard of R
Administrator
> Webley Systems, Inc
> 877-609-4795
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Guerin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: vpopmail
> Subject: RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
>
>
> On
---
From: "Rick Updegrove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Simerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
- Original Message -
From: "
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Simerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:21 AM
Subject: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
> I started blocking connections to my mail server from servers who don't
> have DNS and my vpopmail
OH GOODNESS! My votes...
top post etiquette ridiculous,
reverse name lookup dangerous (but I like it).
My first impression is that you all meant that the @domain.com has to have a
reverse lookup, which I hope everyone knows would be catistrophic since only
the machines themselves will typically ha
> diversion. in short: the original claim was baseless. No mailserver is
> broken for refusing messages from sites that have no in-addr.arpa in place.
Please.
"No mailserver is broken for refusing messages from sites run by [ethnic
group]."
"No mailserver is broken for refusing messages from sit
At 09:43 AM 03-27-2003, Ron Guerin wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:40, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> translation: "i don't know the RFC's, I have no basis for claiming that
> other's mailserver are broken, and I'll continue to evade directly
> confronting my error and apologizing for my mistaken cl
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:40, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> translation: "i don't know the RFC's, I have no basis for claiming that
> other's mailserver are broken, and I'll continue to evade directly
> confronting my error and apologizing for my mistaken claim by pretending to
> take 'the high r
At 09:32 AM 03-27-2003, Ron Guerin wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:22, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> rather than trumping up your argument with etiquette fascism, how about
> pointing out a relevant RFC that backs up your [baseless] opinion that a
> mailserver must accept messages from a site witho
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:22, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> rather than trumping up your argument with etiquette fascism, how about
> pointing out a relevant RFC that backs up your [baseless] opinion that a
> mailserver must accept messages from a site without reverse DNS?
Please, spare me your r
At 08:12 AM 03-27-2003, Ron Guerin wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 11:05, Nick Harring wrote:
> Rather than questioning why we would refuse to accept from
> non-reversible hosts, why don't we ask why anyone would set a host up
> without reverse DNS?
Rather than question why you've deliberately broken
I don't want to be rude or anything... but what does this thread have to
do with vpopmail?
Please take your holy wars elsewhere.
The original poster should've emailed the people at Inter7 rather than
this list.
Rick
At 08:01 AM 03-27-2003, Ron Guerin wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:55, Nick Harring wrote:
> We currently run our hosted systems requiring reverse DNS and haven't
> really had any complaints about mail not being received. While there's
> no rule requiring reverse DNS, systems without it are much mo
Oh my, Nick top-posted. Quickly, someone call out the firing squad.
Where you choose to reply to in a message body is a matter of personal
preference. It is NOT a breach of email etiquette to prefer a way other
than your personal preference. In a list thread, many tend to prefer a
top-post a
Just because I feel like a smart-ass today..
I suppose the rule about top posting is 'posted' right next to the
reverse DNS one?
Look at that.. now it's all out of order.. :P
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:12, Ron Guerin wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 11:05, Nick Harring wrote:
>
> > Rather than qu
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 11:05, Nick Harring wrote:
> Rather than questioning why we would refuse to accept from
> non-reversible hosts, why don't we ask why anyone would set a host up
> without reverse DNS?
Rather than question why you've deliberately broken your mail server, I
should explain to yo
Title: RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
As I said, we've yet to receive more than a handful of complaints, and all of those have been from remote mail admins who've noticed bounces and conscientiously investigated them. When I explained to each what
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:55, Nick Harring wrote:
> We currently run our hosted systems requiring reverse DNS and haven't
> really had any complaints about mail not being received. While there's
> no rule requiring reverse DNS, systems without it are much more likely
> to be spam originators in my e
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 10:35 AM, Ron Guerin wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:21, Matt Simerson wrote:
Apparently a server named "ns1.inter7.com" is doing the delivery for
the vchkpw mailing list. This wouldn't be a problem except that it
doesn't have reverse DNS.
I started blocking connec
t; 877-609-4795
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Kohlsmith
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't
> have reverse DNS!
>
>
> > You&#
Title: RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
We currently run our hosted systems requiring reverse DNS and haven't really had any complaints about mail not being received. While there's no rule requiring reverse DNS, systems without it are much more li
> You'll be losing a lot more legit mail than just this list if you do
> that.
Agreed. There is no rule that demands reverse DNS. It's a nicety and that's
it.
Regards,
Andrew
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:21, Matt Simerson wrote:
> Apparently a server named "ns1.inter7.com" is doing the delivery for
> the vchkpw mailing list. This wouldn't be a problem except that it
> doesn't have reverse DNS.
>
> I started blocking connections to my mail server from servers who don't
>
38 matches
Mail list logo
