> -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
&g
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
> > > >
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 sou
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.
> R
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 th
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 optiona
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
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
> -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
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 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 r
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
acy 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 m
> "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
mercial 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 ma
stered 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 specifical
erver,> 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-U
ean 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
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
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
> -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
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.
> -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
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
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
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: [Asteri
dy
> 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 se
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 everythi
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
