RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Mark Musone > Sent: Monday, 13 June 2005 5:40 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT > > it is NOT required that reverse DNS is setup. get your facts straight. Please! Any mailserver admin can configure the rules on their mainserver however they choose. They and they alone can set the acceptable rejection rate. They can choose to block connectivity for all IP addresses that have an odd number as the last octet, or all domains that are in the .biz TLD In short, their server == their rules. I know for a fact that _my_ servers are subject to _my_ rules! And rDNS, forged HELO, Dynamic IP, DNSbl, RHSbl, Header check, Body checks, greylisting, and several other rules are employed in a draconian way, perhaps you don't think this is required, but I have found these rules to make a positive impact on the amount of spam and worm-spoor rec'd by my users. So... Lets move along, this is now so far of topic that it should almost[1] be taken to NANAE T [1] "Almost", because I am not sure that anyone should be subjected to the flamefest and unbridled invective that flow freely in that froup. > > > On 6/10/05, Neal Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2005 3:16 AM, Andrew Kohlsmith > > [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: > > > > Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com > > > > ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT > > > > > > > > Your MTA claimed it was called "SOURCE" but rDNS tells the > > > > recipient MX that it is called: "mail.linuxautrement.com" > > > > > > I too will block emails with a non-FQDN HELO or EHLO. I feel, > > > however, > > that > > > reverse should not have to match forward lookups for mail > exchangers. > > It's > > > an assinine requirement (my box does web, mail, dns and a host of > > > other services, why should I need it to be called 'mail' for both > > > forward and reverse lookups just to get mail flowing? Assinine. > > > > > > -A. > > > > > > Your server does not have to be called 'mail' for DNS and > rDNS to work > > properly for mail delivery. All that is required is that a reverse > > lookup returns whatever the actual name of the server is and the > > server needs to use that same name when it issues HELO. My > server at home is called 'fs-1' > > and the one at work is 'troutdale'. Both systems work > properly just > > because I set up the DNS and rDNS records to match the names of the > > servers. There are a lot of broken rDNS records on the > internet, and > > that's not likely to change anytime soon. I only have control of a > > very tiny portion of DNS and rDNS space, but I still feel > obligated to > > make my part work properly. It's what makes the internet > work. Would > > you feel OK driving around in your car, knowing that some large > > percentage of the street signs were not correct? > > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Sorry. On 6/12/05, Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 23:16 -0400, C F wrote: > > On 6/10/05, Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote: > > > > according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail > > > > server, > > > > so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. > > Really? Which one? required? Can you please include a link to this > > requirement? > > Careful with the quoting please, this has nothing to do with my post. > > > -- > Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
it is NOT required that reverse DNS is setup. get your facts straight. On 6/10/05, Neal Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Friday, June 10, 2005 3:16 AM, Andrew Kohlsmith > [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: > > > Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com > > > ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT > > > > > > Your MTA claimed it was called "SOURCE" but rDNS tells the recipient MX > > > that it is called: "mail.linuxautrement.com" > > > > I too will block emails with a non-FQDN HELO or EHLO. I feel, however, > that > > reverse should not have to match forward lookups for mail exchangers. > It's > > an assinine requirement (my box does web, mail, dns and a host of other > > services, why should I need it to be called 'mail' for both forward and > > reverse lookups just to get mail flowing? Assinine. > > > > -A. > > > Your server does not have to be called 'mail' for DNS and rDNS to work > properly for mail delivery. All that is required is that a reverse lookup > returns whatever the actual name of the server is and the server needs to > use that same name when it issues HELO. My server at home is called 'fs-1' > and the one at work is 'troutdale'. Both systems work properly just > because I set up the DNS and rDNS records to match the names of the > servers. There are a lot of broken rDNS records on the internet, and > that's not likely to change anytime soon. I only have control of a very > tiny portion of DNS and rDNS space, but I still feel obligated to make my > part work properly. It's what makes the internet work. Would you feel OK > driving around in your car, knowing that some large percentage of the > street signs were not correct? > > > > > > ___ > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 23:16 -0400, C F wrote: > On 6/10/05, Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote: > > > according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail > > > server, > > > so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. > Really? Which one? required? Can you please include a link to this > requirement? Careful with the quoting please, this has nothing to do with my post. -- Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On 6/10/05, Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote: > > according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server, > > so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. Really? Which one? required? Can you please include a link to this requirement? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Hello All , RFC = Request For Comments . STD = Standards Track Document(s) . Hth , JimL On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote: That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded "should" -- it is optional. If the RFC said "must" then it is required. RFCs are worded very carefully as a general rule. I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs. I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not making this up, RFCs use "must" and "should" very carefully. The latter is a guideline, and the former is a rule. I'm trying to find the link describing this but it's eluding me at the moment. I think this is a VERY good thing; RFCs are like the laws of the internet; they should not be open to interpretation since they define the protocols used to interoperate. -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- +--+ | James W. Laferriere | SystemTechniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +--+ ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Saturday 11 Jun 2005 14:56, Tracy Phillips wrote: [...] > I wonder if there is an RFC from top posting? I doubt it... seems the > rest of the world can get along fine reading top posts... rfc1855 details the netiquette guidelines. From paragraph 3.1.1 If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original! ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith (way OT)
I think you're looking for RFC 2119 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Kohlsmith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not making this up, RFCs use > "must" and > "should" very carefully. The latter is a guideline, and the > former is a > rule. I'm trying to find the link describing this but it's > eluding me at the > moment. > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andrew Kohlsmith > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:58 AM > To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > > On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote: > > > That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded "should" -- it is > > > optional. If the RFC said "must" then it is required. RFCs are > > > worded very carefully as a general rule. > > > I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs. > > I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not making this up, RFCs use > "must" and "should" very carefully. The latter is a > guideline, and the former is a rule. I'm trying to find the > link describing this but it's eluding me at the moment. > > I think this is a VERY good thing; RFCs are like the laws of > the internet; they should not be open to interpretation since > they define the protocols used to interoperate. > > -A. Andrew, Did some looking for you. It is contained in RFC 2119, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. Here is an excerpt: Abstract In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. 2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification. 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option provides.) 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability. So here you are absolutely correct. Robert ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote: > > That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded "should" -- it is optional. If > > the RFC said "must" then it is required. RFCs are worded very carefully > > as a general rule. > I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs. I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not making this up, RFCs use "must" and "should" very carefully. The latter is a guideline, and the former is a rule. I'm trying to find the link describing this but it's eluding me at the moment. I think this is a VERY good thing; RFCs are like the laws of the internet; they should not be open to interpretation since they define the protocols used to interoperate. -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs. --Tracy On 6/11/05, Andrew Kohlsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 11 June 2005 09:56, Tracy Phillips wrote: > > True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same > > rules. If we all play by the same rules things on the internet tend to > > work as expected. I like things to work as expected, don't you? > > That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded "should" -- it is optional. If the > RFC said "must" then it is required. RFCs are worded very carefully as a > general rule. > > -A. > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > -- Tracy Phillips Weberize Inc. 800-677-1047 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Saturday 11 June 2005 09:56, Tracy Phillips wrote: > True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same > rules. If we all play by the same rules things on the internet tend to > work as expected. I like things to work as expected, don't you? That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded "should" -- it is optional. If the RFC said "must" then it is required. RFCs are worded very carefully as a general rule. -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Blocking from unknown domains fine, blocking from dynamic ip's that's just plain bullshit. This topic has been done to death, move along nothing to see. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tracy Phillips > Sent: Saturday, 11 June 2005 9:57 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > > > "should" != "must" - it is not illegal. > > > > True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same > rules. If we all play by the same rules things on the internet tend to > work as expected. I like things to work as expected, don't you? > > The reason most people (myself included) block mail that come from > dynamic IP's is the fact that the majority of email that originates > from them is spam. Not all mind you but most. > > I wonder if there is an RFC from top posting? I doubt it... seems the > rest of the world can get along fine reading top posts... > > --Tracy > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
> "should" != "must" - it is not illegal. > True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same rules. If we all play by the same rules things on the internet tend to work as expected. I like things to work as expected, don't you? The reason most people (myself included) block mail that come from dynamic IP's is the fact that the majority of email that originates from them is spam. Not all mind you but most. I wonder if there is an RFC from top posting? I doubt it... seems the rest of the world can get along fine reading top posts... --Tracy ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Friday 10 Jun 2005 22:46, list wrote: > RFC 1912 > "Every Internet-reachable host should have a name." and then "For every IP > address, there should be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa > domain." and "Failure to have matching PTR and A records can cause loss > of Internet services similar to not being registered in the DNS at all." Please do not top post. "should" != "must" - it is not illegal. > - Original Message - > From: Mark Musone > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > > > exactly what RFC is this??? > rfc2821 specifically only talke about forward lookups resolving to an A > record and not a CNAME. > > I think you're making this up.. > > -Mark > > On 6/9/05, list < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail > > server, so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. > > > > -jon > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: "Sean Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM > > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > > > > > Matt wrote: > > >>I apologize for sending this to the list. > > >> > > >>Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending > > >>you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really > > >> want to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using > > >> now is going to block almost everything and everyone. > > > > > > Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me > > > off list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, > > > I just let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a > > > dynamic address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their > > > requirements to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my > > > reverse to look proper or something ), I will always be on their > > > blacklist. > > > > > > Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS. [ Why the f*ck can people not delete signatures ] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
RFC 1912 "Every Internet-reachable host should have a name." and then "For every IPaddress, there should be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpadomain." and "Failure to have matching PTR and A records can cause lossof Internet services similar to not being registered in the DNS at all." - Original Message - From: Mark Musone To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith exactly what RFC is this???rfc2821 specifically only talke about forward lookups resolving to an A record and not a CNAME.I think you're making this up..-MarkOn 6/9/05, list < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server,> so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate.> > -jon> > > - Original Message - > From: "Sean Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith> > > > Matt wrote:> >> >>I apologize for sending this to the list.> >>> >>Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending > >>you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want> >>to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is> >>going to block almost everything and everyone. > >>> > Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off> > list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just> > let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic > > address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements> > to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look> > proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. > >> > Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS.> >> > Sean> >> >> > ___> > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users> >> > ___> Asterisk-Users mailing list> Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___Asterisk-Users mailing listAsterisk-Users@lists.digium.comhttp://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-usersTo UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
exactly what RFC is this??? rfc2821 specifically only talke about forward lookups resolving to an A record and not a CNAME.I think you're making this up..-MarkOn 6/9/05, list < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server,> so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate.> > -jon> > > - Original Message - > From: "Sean Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith> > > > Matt wrote:> >> >>I apologize for sending this to the list.> >>> >>Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending > >>you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want> >>to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is> >>going to block almost everything and everyone. > >>> > Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off> > list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just> > let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic > > address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements> > to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look> > proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. > >> > Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS.> >> > Sean> >> >> > ___> > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users> >> > ___> Asterisk-Users mailing list> Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Legitimate or not, if you are asking me for help off list ( as a number of you have done ) and you never get a reply from me, that's likely why: You mail server is blocking mine based on a blacklist like ORBS. I don't waste any time trying to get around this, so I'm sorry if you folks never get the help you ask for, but it's something you are doing to yourselves. Sean list wrote: according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server, so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. -jon - Original Message - From: "Sean Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith Matt wrote: I apologize for sending this to the list. Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is going to block almost everything and everyone. Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS. Sean ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
On Friday, June 10, 2005 3:16 AM, Andrew Kohlsmith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: > > Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com > > ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT > > > > Your MTA claimed it was called "SOURCE" but rDNS tells the recipient MX > > that it is called: "mail.linuxautrement.com" > > I too will block emails with a non-FQDN HELO or EHLO. I feel, however, that > reverse should not have to match forward lookups for mail exchangers. It's > an assinine requirement (my box does web, mail, dns and a host of other > services, why should I need it to be called 'mail' for both forward and > reverse lookups just to get mail flowing? Assinine. > > -A. Your server does not have to be called 'mail' for DNS and rDNS to work properly for mail delivery. All that is required is that a reverse lookup returns whatever the actual name of the server is and the server needs to use that same name when it issues HELO. My server at home is called 'fs-1' and the one at work is 'troutdale'. Both systems work properly just because I set up the DNS and rDNS records to match the names of the servers. There are a lot of broken rDNS records on the internet, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. I only have control of a very tiny portion of DNS and rDNS space, but I still feel obligated to make my part work properly. It's what makes the internet work. Would you feel OK driving around in your car, knowing that some large percentage of the street signs were not correct? > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
On Friday 10 June 2005 07:34, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: > Your server your rules, however in this day of increasing trojan SMTP > engined boxes, you should expect to get les and less deliverability. I fail to see how a reverse pointer that == forward record means a more reliable message. How many SMTP servers are compromised? I far prefer smarter methods, especially in days where people are putting as many services as possible on one IP and want a reverse record that makes some kind of sense. :-) > The point I was making is that the MTA was using a faked name in the HELO. > That is an immediate red flag to a well configured MX. Oh absolutely and, as I said, I do the same thing. Actually my front-line postfix rules reject a lot of mail before it ever hits the real spam/virus filters. -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andrew Kohlsmith > Sent: Friday, 10 June 2005 8:16 PM > To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT > > On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: > > Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com > > ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT > > > > Your MTA claimed it was called "SOURCE" but rDNS tells the > recipient > > MX that it is called: "mail.linuxautrement.com" > > I too will block emails with a non-FQDN HELO or EHLO. I > feel, however, that reverse should not have to match forward > lookups for mail exchangers. It's an assinine requirement > (my box does web, mail, dns and a host of other services, why > should I need it to be called 'mail' for both forward and > reverse lookups just to get mail flowing? Assinine. Your server your rules, however in this day of increasing trojan SMTP engined boxes, you should expect to get les and less deliverability. The point I was making is that the MTA was using a faked name in the HELO. That is an immediate red flag to a well configured MX. Shrug, ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote: > Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com > ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT > > Your MTA claimed it was called "SOURCE" but rDNS tells the recipient MX > that it is called: "mail.linuxautrement.com" I too will block emails with a non-FQDN HELO or EHLO. I feel, however, that reverse should not have to match forward lookups for mail exchangers. It's an assinine requirement (my box does web, mail, dns and a host of other services, why should I need it to be called 'mail' for both forward and reverse lookups just to get mail flowing? Assinine. -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dave Cotton > Sent: Friday, 10 June 2005 5:29 PM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote: > > according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail > > server, so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. > > My ISP has the option of reverse lookups, I still get blocked > by some other ISPs :( > What are the Reject messages that you are getting. There are many reasons for having email blocked, and rDNS is not the primary one (by a long shot) Taking a look at the block lists...: 81.56.129.44 is listed in dynablock.njabl.org. It seems that your IP is part of a dial-up pool? (guessing) Your rDNS seems ok, but your MTA is greeting the recipient MX with a forged HELO or EHLO Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT Your MTA claimed it was called "SOURCE" but rDNS tells the recipient MX that it is called: "mail.linuxautrement.com" If you fix this, then perhaps your problems deliverg email will go away? Regards, T ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote: > according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server, > so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. My ISP has the option of reverse lookups, I still get blocked by some other ISPs :( -- Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
As an isp I can tell you that we run into this problem on a daily basis. We see three troubles: A) No reverse (PTR) record at all B) Reverse (PTR) but no forward to match Which a) and b) usually cause the most troubles and... C) A+B but with a domain of the mail server trying to send mail. Regardless the previous poster said they couldn't send on some cable company residential -- well that was in the TOS when you signed up and thus you should be faulted for that. We are willing to oblige any of our customers with reverse DNS entries (PTR)... But that was way OT so sorry all.. Just my 0.02 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of list Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 4:01 PM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server, so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. -jon - Original Message - From: "Sean Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > Matt wrote: > >>I apologize for sending this to the list. >> >>Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending >>you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want >>to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is >>going to block almost everything and everyone. >> > Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off > list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just > let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic > address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements > to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look > proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. > > Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS. > > Sean > > > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server, so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate. -jon - Original Message - From: "Sean Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith Matt wrote: I apologize for sending this to the list. Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is going to block almost everything and everyone. Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS. Sean ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Yep same thing here using no-ip.com for domain dns and time warner residential cable - I get black listed both ways. My attitude is oh well, your loss. Dean > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Kennedy > Sent: Thursday, 9 June 2005 2:29 PM > To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith > > Matt wrote: > > >I apologize for sending this to the list. > > > >Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending > >you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want > >to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is > >going to block almost everything and everyone. > > > Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off > list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just > let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic > address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements > to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look > proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. > > Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS. > > Sean > > > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Matt wrote: I apologize for sending this to the list. Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is going to block almost everything and everyone. Honestly, when I've tried to reply to people who have contacted me off list, and I get a bounce because of a too restrictive black list, I just let it drop. ORBS is blocking my mail server for being on a dynamic address, for example. And given that I can't fulfill their requirements to get myself removed ( basically, I'd have to get my reverse to look proper or something ), I will always be on their blacklist. Just something to keep in mind, all of you using ORBS. Sean ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
