Hi,
> Wer kann mir bei Bluewin helfe, dass sie von der SpamCop und Spamhaus
> Liste kommen ?
Bluewin isn't listed at spamhaus.org anymore.. and looks like
the bl.spamcop.net entries will vanish soon..
> Bluewin Kunden werden vom Bluewin Support falsch
> Informiert oder angelogen
Maybe someone f
> Does some of you (ISPs) have experiences to tell me about the SORBS
> Blacklist ?
I used the 'support' form and they simply delisted us (Bluewin).
We didn't pay for the delisting.
While they listed us a 2nd time, sorbs.net was broken somehow:
The support-form didn't work anymore.. We sent them
btw:
Microsoft provides a Patch for this problem:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=7b1ff109-092e-4418-aa37-a53af7b8f6fc&displaylang=en
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
> Can anyone please delete them and block the sender's address
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Done:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is now blacklisted on mail.bluewin.ch
and i'm about to clean our queue.
Regards,
Adrian
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.c
Hi Olivier,
> Problem: some customers online via gprs are unable to send mails
> over these servers, because their external visible IP adress
> (gprs01.swisscom-mobile.ch: 193.247.250.1) is blacklisted on
> several lists:
I agree with Rene Luria:
SMTP-Auth should always override dns-rbls.
A
> ...not working...
..checkout the HTML source (it's a quiz..) ;-)
--
A. Top posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swi
Hi,
> The only thing coming close to it in scalability is Critical Path.
Does the windows version of Critical Path still exist? ;-)
After all it's a good/stable product.
(Well: i dislike the CP-smtpd .. it works unless you try to do
anything funky .. but replacing it with postfix/qmail isn't a
> And why not using the existing authentication protocol on outgoing smtp
> server ? So the sender can use the smtp server of the provider of its
> email address from any network and SPF can work without any problem.
How would this solve the forwarding problem?
And how are you going to teach ev
> So I would suggest offering SMTP (AUTH) support on ports 25 and 26, just to
> be sure.
No no no.
RFC: 2476:
| 3. Message Submission
| 3.1. Submission Identification
|
| Port 587 is reserved for email message submission as specified in
| this document. Messages received on this port are
> would they not then block official port 587 as well as port 25?
> That was the position I heard the 'customer service rep' take the last
> time I tried to solve such a problem through appeal to bureaucratic
> sensibility.
There isn't really a (valid) reason to block port 587:
Blocking outgoi
> Seems to me that the benefit of cutting down on Spam would be worth the
> trouble of using port 587...
Blocking port 25 is just a quick-n-dirty 'fix'.
What will happen when virus-writers are going to spam using 587 (The
credentials are stored on the users PC anyway..)?
What would people do t
Hello Benoit,
> Have other seen this behaviour of exchange servers
Yes. One of our MX servers somehow managed to loose the connection to
the ldap server (didn't dare to re-establish it) and only returned
(valid) tempfail messages.
Sending mails from Exchange (internal messaging system) to this M
> Is there someone left who uses them to reject mails on smtp level?
Yes, we are still using Spamhaus.org on our MX servers, but we are using the
rsync feed and we are able to whitelist IPs within a few seconds.
Anyway:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL55483 is still there
but
Hi Tobias,
> I've stopped using spamhaus.org when they started blocking 127.0.0.1
Didn't notice this and currently it is not listed.
Do you have any 'evidence' (or references) ;-) (Mailing-list postings, etc)
> (what a very nice idea if you have a system that sends logs... very clever).
IMO t
> It's a little expensive if you have many SMS'es - does anyone know who
> to contact (e.g. at Swisscom) to get a package-deal with a direct TCP
> interface?
You are looking for an 'SMSC Large Account'
http://www.swisscom-mobile.ch/scm/gek_sms_large_account-de.aspx
You'll get your own 'short i
Hi Jeroen
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 22394
> ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
We are aware that ns.bwlbmsg1zhh.bluewin.ch. doesn't play well with IPv6
(and we also know that some lb-vendors are not able to fix such simple bugs).
> Maybe they forgot they caused problem and put them back now?
We didn't remove them (and we didn't change anything in the last few months..)
but we added
42 mxzhh.bluewin.ch
42 mxzhb.bluewin.ch
to our MX records and it solved the problem for freebsd+sendmail ;-)
--
RFC 1925:
(11) Ev
> It does, but it does give up on the mxbw one.
Your MX-Test or Postfix?
> It also doesn't leave a good impression on customers I
> guess that the ISP can't even have a proper email setup.
thanks for letting me know that i am a moron. ;-)
> Nevertheless, I would gently try and suggest to fix i
Hi Andreas,
> From my side it looks like bluewin mailserver is not accepting any
> email at the moment.
We had some funky problems with our loadbalancers this morning.
> (delivery temporarily suspended: connect to mx49.bluewin.ch[195.186.18.99]:
> Connection timed out)
hehe.. mx49 is just a
> ok, but why is there no answer?
Does 194.42.48.120 work correctly?
Regards,
Adrian
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
> dell.com works, but try any other host that is being contacted while loading
> www.dell.com and is hosted by akamai, such as i.dell.com
No problem via Bluewin-DSL:
$ telnet i.dell.com 80
Trying 212.243.223.139...
Connected to i.dell.com (212.243.223.139).
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP
Good Morning,
Is your source ip 195.141.232.78 ?
Regards,
Adrian
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Hi,
> Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78),
..yes
> Bluewin does a "normal" forward DNS lookup, using the result from the
> above query.
we don't.
The resolver implementation of our MTA software appears to have a problem
with truncated UDP responses.
(Btw: Why do you h
> When I must have for everery Domain an IP for the reverse of Bluewin is a
> big Problem...
You don't have to: The lengthy PTR record just triggered a bug in our MTA
Software.
Anyway: Such a multi-ptr record is of no use:
- It does not scale
- There is no need for it. A single record (matc
Hi Martin,
> I may be wrong, but doesn't DNS use TCP if the answer to a query
> exceeds a certain length?
Yes. If the resolver receives a truncated response (TC bit set) it is supposed
to
re-do the query via TCP.
You are out of luck if your resolver thinks:
'What the hell is a TC bit?! I'll j
Hi Roger,
> Now we found out that bluewin doesn't allow authenticated smtp-relay
> from users outside their ip-range, so all our customers with
> bluewin-mailadresses would have no smtp-server available.
That's not entirely correct:
smtpauth.bluewin.ch will relay mails from non-bluewin-ip-ranges
Hi,
> Thank you for clearing this up. So we have to give bluewin-users with
> free bluewin mail-accounts an smtp-account on our servers I think.
Well, they could call our helpdesk and ask them to disable the
'Restricted IP-Range' feature for a specific mailaccount.
Our helpdesk will disable it
Hi,
> Bluewin apparently has added ip-range restrictions to
> smtpauth.bluewin.ch so it is not usable anymore from some ip-ranges (like
> ours and freesurf I was told).
Well, i don't work at Bluewin-Messaging anymore, but:
'Free' (aka non-paying, aka not-verified) customers are not allowed to
> Filtering locally simply means stopping end users to access illegal sites.
> Ok, but the sites are still there and everybody else will still have access !
Yes, but i'm sure that the 'local' netclean box can log IPs of people who
attempted
to access such illegal sites (such as Wikipedia)
So whe
> Registration deadline:31.12.2008 23:59:59
2008 is a 'leap-second-year' [1] and ends at 23:59:60, *NOT* at 23:59:59 :-p
Regards,
Adrian
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://list
Sorry for getting off-topic .. but...
> 23:59:60 is the same (if wold exist) like 00:00:00 and this is the New
> year...
No: 23:59:60 is not the same as 00:00:00
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat
So 31.12.2008 will be 86401 seconds long instead of 86400 seconds.
But anyway..
> Anybody knows something about big DNS troubles with Bluewin ADSL/VDSL?
No: Bluewin-DNS is fine for me. But i had some ADSL problems on 2-3. Jan:
I had about ~30% packet loss with any (?) gateway in 195.186.252.0/24.
Re-Connecting until i got a gateway in the 253-range fixed the problem
for me
> I'm pretty surprised that of the 1.7M domains with an MX record, only 57%
> have DKIM
I don't see how one could reliability gather this data from DNS:
DKIM allows you to specify a selector in the header of the mail: This mail for
example will use 'sx1' as the selector (check out the header ;-
Hi Daniel,
> Your nameserver breaks https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8020
I'd rather say 'does not implement' instead of 'break':
As RFC 8020 points out, the (almost 30 years older) RFC 1034 is very unspecific
about the details on how a nameserver should behave in such a situation.
(And opinion
34 matches
Mail list logo
