Richard Reynolds wrote: > On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > >> Yea! reverse dns has been set up, and suddenly RoadRunner is giving me >> list email again. (Thanks jp) >>.. >> If I understand jhriv's explanation, the rfc2821 explicitly says that: >> >> "SMTP .. servers MUST NOT refuse to accept a message [on the basis of >> lacking rDNS verification]" >> >> I was wondering whether I should gripe to RoadRunner? > you can gripe all you want but if there anything like cox, they will > just tell you its there network and they can administer it anyway they > want to. > > I was/am getting complaints of rejected or blocked email to my cox email > addresses both business and private accounts there response was to take > it up with the senders because they are not changing there setup. > > > My little experience with roadrunner is that they will do the same thing.
Yeah, I don't have much respect for RR's technical prowess. In this case, however, jp has explained to me that the missing PTR record was in fact an error that made it look like sparky's IP was invalid, and RR was ok to refuse traffic from such an IP. The fact that they couldn't respond intelligently to my query is what they were most guilty of this time around. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
