Peter wrote:
Crist Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
The problem I've seen is when an SMTP server does not accept emails
which have non-resolvable MAIL FROM domain. When the sender is a
dumb SMTP client, not an MTA, this can cause problems.
Well, that "dumb SMTP client" should stop pre
On Friday 30 Sep 2005 9:37 am, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> spam and virus rating on outgoing is pointless nobody in their
> right mind is going to use them.
Whilst I think it is silly to do.
Why not drop emails that claim to be viruses or spam?
Of course why anyone would allow their servers
ription:
> * 0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
> * -1.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
> * [score: 0.]
> * -0.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
> Subject: Re: Weird DNS issues for domains
> X-S
Crist Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The problem I've seen is when an SMTP server does not accept emails
> which have non-resolvable MAIL FROM domain. When the sender is a
> dumb SMTP client, not an MTA, this can cause problems.
Well, that "dumb SMTP client" should stop pretending to be
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>>
>> I just tested it from a Verizon DSL host and it worked.
>>
>> You might want to consider reading RFC 2182 though, particularly the
>> part about geographically diverse nameservers.
>
>Yeah, yeah, that is overrated. If my site goes dark and my DNS
Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, yeah, that is overrated. If my site goes dark and my DNS goes
> down it doesn't really matter as the bandwidth and the web server
> will also be down. Having a live DNS server in another part of the
> country won't help if the access routers
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> You might want to consider reading RFC 2182 though, particularly the
> >> part about geographically diverse nameservers.
> > Yeah, yeah, that is overrated. If my site goes dark and my DNS goes
> > down it doesn't really matter as the bandwidth and the
Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I just tested it from a Verizon DSL host and it worked.
>>
>> You might want to consider reading RFC 2182 though, particularly the
>> part about geographically diverse nameservers.
>
> Yeah, yeah, that is overrated. If my site goes dark and my DNS
> A MTA bouncing mail on temporary DNS failure would be out of spec,
> horribly.
luckily no mail servers are out of spec.
randy
>> You might want to consider reading RFC 2182 though, particularly the
>> part about geographically diverse nameservers.
> Yeah, yeah, that is overrated. If my site goes dark and my DNS goes
> down it doesn't really matter as the bandwidth and the web server
> will also be down.
and folk w
I'll defer to you on this. Clearly a failure to resolve is
not the same thing as a NXDOMAIN RCODE.
And yet, personal experience has show that the failure of all a
customer's DNS servers for a domain does cause swifter mail bouncing than
would occur otherwise. I do not know if it was due to the o
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, John Dupuy wrote:
If you are talking about strictly http, then you are probably right. If you
are hosting any email, then this isn't the case. A live DNS but dead mail
server will cause your mail to queue up for a later resend on the originating
mail
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, John Dupuy wrote:
> If you are talking about strictly http, then you are probably right. If you
> are hosting any email, then this isn't the case. A live DNS but dead mail
> server will cause your mail to queue up for a later resend on the originating
> mail servers. A dead D
John Dupuy wrote:
If you are talking about strictly http, then you are probably right.
If you are hosting any email, then this isn't the case. A live DNS but
dead mail server will cause your mail to queue up for a later resend
on the originating mail servers. A dead DNS will cause the mail
If you are talking about strictly http, then you are probably right. If you
are hosting any email, then this isn't the case. A live DNS but dead mail
server will cause your mail to queue up for a later resend on the
originating mail servers. A dead DNS will cause the mail to bounce as
undeliv
I just tested it from a Verizon DSL host and it worked.
You might want to consider reading RFC 2182 though, particularly the
part about geographically diverse nameservers.
Yeah, yeah, that is overrated. If my site goes dark and my DNS goes
down it doesn't really matter as the bandwidth a
whoops...sorry for the extraneous data...
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
At 9:33 -0400 9/29/05, Matthew Crocker wrote:
What do you all see for sanderson.mtrsd.k12.ma.us &
www.sanderson.mtrsd.k12.ma.us.
For your entertainment, I'm a cox.net customer in No Va...
$ dig +trace sanderson.mtrsd.k12.ma.us ns
; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> +trace sanderson.mtrsd.k12.ma.us ns
;; g
Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Everything looks like it is configured properly on my servers but the
> customer is reporting that certain parents (VerizonDSL, Comcast,
> DirectWAY) can connect to certain website and not others. At this
> point I think the problem is with the DNS
On 9/29/05, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm hoping someone on the list can help confirm that I'm not going
> insane.
How can you be sure it's not the other way around? You're sane and
everyone else is insane? :)
> Can someone confirm my sanity? My zone of control starts at
>
I'm hoping someone on the list can help confirm that I'm not going
insane.
I have a customer with the domain 'mtrsd.k12.ma.us' The domain
should be handled by our DNS servers (dns-auth1.crocker.com & dns-
auth2.crocker.com)
The customer has an A record for www.mtrsd.k12.ma.us pointin
21 matches
Mail list logo
