In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily bounce
their mail until then.
Are you willing to pay the difference between the cost of that
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:41:30PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Perhaps it's from being too geeky myself, but Branden's explanation
(the recipient of the error message is not welcome on *THEIR* Internet
under the reasoning that they're ... refusing connections from machines
It was the bit
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:33:09PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
My reverse DNS does not match my forward DNS. I have @home. Only
They don't need to match. Your IP just needs to resolve to something, and
that something needs to resolve back to your IP. This has no effect on what
From:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:44:06PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily bounce
their mail until then.
Are you willing to pay the difference between the cost of that user's
current ISP and one which meets your standard?
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:00:39PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
Complete bullshit. Show me the RFC that says you may only have one DNS
name attached to an IP at a time. You can't do it because it doesn't
exist. Several Debian developers have debian.net subdomains which do not
reverse because
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:37:25PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
My reverse DNS does not match my forward DNS. I have @home. Only
They don't need to match. Your IP just needs to resolve to something, and
that something needs to resolve back to your IP. This has no effect on what
From:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:37:25PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
My reverse DNS does not match my forward DNS. I have @home. Only
They don't need to match. Your IP just needs to resolve to something, and
that something needs
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:44:06PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
A server on the 'net without matching forward/reverse DNS is broken.
Period.
Complete bullshit. Show me the RFC that says you may only have one DNS
name
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:00:39PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:44:06PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
A server on the 'net without matching forward/reverse DNS is broken.
Period.
Complete bullshit. Show me the RFC that says you may only have one
DNS name
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:10:12AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:00:39PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:44:06PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
[snip, snip, snippety-snip]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I just joined the debian-devel list
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:16:23PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:37:25PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
My reverse DNS does not match my forward DNS. I have @home. Only
They don't need to match. Your IP just needs to resolve to something, and
that something needs
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:20:46PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
So? Anyone who asked for that would be unreasonable. Besides, nobody's mail
server is telneting to your port 25 to see what your SMTP greeting says --
that would be insane. It's a simple double-lookup. The PTR record is
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:20:02PM -0700, Michael S. Fischer wrote:
I just joined the debian-devel list yesterday, all excited
[...]
I am now very turned off because instead of seeing a bunch
of bright developers, I'm seeing a voluminous amount of off-topic
flaming.
Welcome to Debian.
--
G.
Micheal == Michael S Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Micheal I just joined the debian-devel list yesterday, all excited about being
Micheal able to possibly contribute code and insights to the installation
Micheal system to make it more palatable to those who would like to install
Micheal
On Sep 07, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some very big ISP here have mailservers with no reverse mapping...
Well, they are badly broken, you know?
I do, but refusing mail is quite an extreme act.
The IANA mandate is that /all/ machines on public IP address have
I really don't think so.
8.09.2000 pisze Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I am now very turned off because instead of seeing a bunch of
bright developers, I'm seeing a voluminous amount of off-topic
flaming.
Welcome to Debian.
``What is Debian. How do you define Debian? If you're talking about what
you
Hi,
Oliver Schulze is an upstream maintainer of one of my prospective packages,
and he's had problems sending mail to my @debian.org address. I believe that
this is something to do with master's IPv6 configuration - the SMTP error
message from master is:
550 mail from :::216.250.196.10
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Timshel Knoll wrote:
Oliver Schulze is an upstream maintainer of one of my prospective packages,
and he's had problems sending mail to my @debian.org address. I believe that
this is something to do with master's IPv6 configuration - the SMTP error
message from master is:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:08:17PM +1100, Timshel Knoll wrote:
550 mail from :::216.250.196.10 rejected: administrative prohibition
(failed to find host name from IP address)
Is there any way to get this fixed?
No. The MTA at the destination host is trying to tell you that dialup
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:08:17PM +1100, Timshel Knoll wrote:
550 mail from :::216.250.196.10 rejected: administrative
prohibition (failed to find host name from IP address)
Is there any way to get this fixed?
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:08:17PM +1100, Timshel Knoll wrote:
550 mail from :::216.250.196.10 rejected: administrative
prohibition (failed to find host name from IP address)
Is there any way to get this fixed?
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:33:21PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:08:17PM +1100, Timshel Knoll wrote:
550 mail from :::216.250.196.10 rejected: administrative
prohibition (failed to find host
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:33:21PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Perhaps it's from being too geeky myself, but Branden's explanation
(the recipient of the error message is not welcome on *THEIR* Internet
under the reasoning that they're ... refusing connections from machines
with
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily bounce
their mail until then.
Are you willing to pay the difference between the cost of that user's
current ISP and one which meets your standard? Until then,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:57:05PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
Perhaps it's from being too geeky myself, but Branden's explanation
(the recipient of the error message is not welcome on *THEIR* Internet
under the reasoning that they're ... refusing connections from machines
with
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:55:07AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily
bounce their mail until then.
Are you willing to pay the difference between the cost of that
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:57:05PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:33:21PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Perhaps it's from being too geeky myself, but Branden's explanation
(the recipient of the error message is not welcome on *THEIR* Internet
under the reasoning that
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:55:07AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily bounce
their mail until then.
Are you willing to pay the difference between the cost of that
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:09:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
nobody's telling anyone to get any particular ISP or that they have to
pay for a premium quality service.
True.
it's simple - if you want a service that's worth having, you pay
whatever it costs. if you don't want that, then pay
On Thu 07 Sep 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:55:07AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes. get an ISP that can do reverse DNS. YEESHHH! I'll happily bounce
their mail until then.
Are you willing
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:09:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
it's simple - if you want a service that's worth having, you
pay whatever it costs. if you don't want that, then pay for a
cheap/crappy service and put up with it
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 09:06:55PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
i think you misread what i said. i said that missing or incorrect
reverse DNS is *NOT* a good reason for bouncing mail.
I guess I did.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sep 07, Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just your standard lack of reverse DNS.. Part of the anti-spam
bit. The sender needs to get working reverse DNS I suppose..
Looks like a stupid check, to me.
Some very big ISP here have mailservers with no reverse mapping...
--
ciao,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:33:21PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 07, Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just your standard lack of reverse DNS.. Part of the anti-spam
bit. The sender needs to get working reverse DNS I suppose..
Looks like a stupid check, to me.
It is.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:58:33AM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
In any case, reverse DNS lookup is reasonable, no matter what you
think of DUL.
I have to agree with this. The previous time, the discussion was using
DUL to block email. This is about reverse DNS lookups failing, which
is a
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:33:21PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
It says, in plain English, failed to find host name from IP address.
It says in plain English, administrative prohibition (failed to fine
host name from IP address)
Perhaps it's from being too geeky myself, but Branden's
On Thu 07 Sep 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:58:33AM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
In any case, reverse DNS lookup is reasonable, no matter what you
think of DUL.
I have to agree with this. The previous time, the discussion was using
DUL to block email. This is
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:19:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
People like Mr. Jones don't like to consider impacts. They like easy rules
and easy policies. They don't like to do analysis. And they especially
don't like to be inconvenienced by considerations of the impact of their
38 matches
Mail list logo
