on 5/2/2012 9:36 AM Prabhpal S. Mavi spake the following:
>
>> ntpdate should be run just once and then just have ntpd on.. the nptdate
>> should bring the server to the proper time and cause dovecot to
>> fail..you should only need to run it once (assuming the server is left
>> on and not off for
> ntpdate should be run just once and then just have ntpd on.. the nptdate
> should bring the server to the proper time and cause dovecot to
> fail..you should only need to run it once (assuming the server is left
> on and not off for long periods).
> I run ntpd as a daemon, but not ntpdate...
> y
On 5/2/2012 12:16 PM, Prabhpal S. Mavi wrote:
>>> But when i restarted the server, dovecot failed to start on boot (it is
>>> virtual machine). with this error.
>>>
>>> dovecot: dovecot: Fatal: Time just moved backwards by 537 seconds. This
>>> might cause a lot of problems, so I'll just kill mysel
>> But when i restarted the server, dovecot failed to start on boot (it is
>> virtual machine). with this error.
>>
>> dovecot: dovecot: Fatal: Time just moved backwards by 537 seconds. This
>> might cause a lot of problems, so I'll just kill myself now.
>>
>> immediately then, i tried to send one
On 5/2/2012 7:51 AM, Prabhpal S. Mavi wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> that actually worked!! i configured ntpd& ntpdate& restarted the server.
> But when i restarted the server, dovecot failed to start on boot (it is
> virtual machine). with this error.
>
> dovecot: dovecot: Fatal: Time just moved backw
> Hello, Prabh.
>
> Your answer lies in the info you provided:
>
> domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=digital-infotech.net; dkim=permerror
> (future timestamp)
>
> Yahoo appears to think that your timestamp is off by some amount of time
> in the future.
>
> --
> Mike Burger
Hello Mike,
that actua
> Hello, Prabh.
>
> Your answer lies in the info you provided:
>
> domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=digital-infotech.net; dkim=permerror
> (future timestamp)
>
> Yahoo appears to think that your timestamp is off by some amount of time
> in the future.
>
> --
> Mike Burger
> http://www.bubbanfrien
> Hello, Prabh.
>
> Your answer lies in the info you provided:
>
> domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=digital-infotech.net; dkim=permerror
> (future timestamp)
>
> Yahoo appears to think that your timestamp is off by some amount of time
> in the future.
>
> --
> Mike Burger
> http://www.bubbanfrien
> Hi Dear Community Friends,
>
> it is few days now, i am trying to figure out why DKIM is working / not
> working. Any assistance would be very much appreciable.
>
> Server IP is not blacklisted ever, MX, PTR SPF, DKIM records are available
> in DNS. why it is working at Gmail, why failing at Yah
Gregory P. Ennis wrote on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:58:53 -0600:
> Great link but he does not have the lastest version of dkim for i386.
> Do you have any experience with dkim and the revisions?
I don't use it. There's a src.rpm, so you can rebuild it. You will need
gcc for this as well. This tutorial
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 22:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Gregory P. Ennis wrote on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600:
>
> > make[2]: cc: Command not found
>
> You obviously don't have a build environment installed. cc is the C
> compiler ("cc") and part of gcc.
>
> But why reinvent the wheel? Sim
Gregory P. Ennis wrote on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600:
> make[2]: cc: Command not found
You obviously don't have a build environment installed. cc is the C
compiler ("cc") and part of gcc.
But why reinvent the wheel? Simple Google search reveals
http://www.topdog-software.com/oss/dkim-milte
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 08:15:05PM +0200, mouss wrote:
> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Mouss wrote on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:20:09 +0200:
>>
>>> oh please no. hotmail don't delete my mail and I don't have an SPF
>>> record. no do yahoo/gmail. and this was before I implemented DKIM.
>>> and I've recently w
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Mouss wrote on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:20:09 +0200:
oh please no. hotmail don't delete my mail and I don't have an SPF
record. no do yahoo/gmail. and this was before I implemented DKIM. and
I've recently worked for a project where SPF didn't help with hotmail
Well, then they
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:31:13 +0200
Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, then they have some other obscure reason to silently delete all mail
> from me to my daughter's Hotmail account.
I have found hotmail to be about the least reliable of the free webmail
providers in terms of actual
Mouss wrote on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:20:09 +0200:
> oh please no. hotmail don't delete my mail and I don't have an SPF
> record. no do yahoo/gmail. and this was before I implemented DKIM. and
> I've recently worked for a project where SPF didn't help with hotmail
Well, then they have some other o
Bill Campbell wrote on Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:46:54 -0700:
> We are on the AOL feedback,
I once was. However, it became evident after a while that a lot of their
"spam" was not spam, was not deemed by their customer to be spam (I
contacted several of them) or was not originating from our servers.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:50 +0200:
>
>> That's supposed to help with what regarding his problem?
>
>Hotmail seems to delete all mail from domains without SPF if it's not
>coming from the MX. Yahoo might be doing the same.
I don't t
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:50 +0200:
That's supposed to help with what regarding his problem?
Hotmail seems to delete all mail from domains without SPF if it's not
coming from the MX. Yahoo might be doing the same.
oh please no. hotmail don't dele
mouss wrote:
Andrew Norris wrote:
Or am I missing something?
"double lookup" is IP -> name -> IP. you don't do name -> IP -> name.
Ok, I guess I've always thought about it backwards. Thanks for setting
me straight.
--
Andrew Norris
Systems Administrator
Locus Telecommunications
[EMAIL PR
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:50 +0200:
> That's supposed to help with what regarding his problem?
Hotmail seems to delete all mail from domains without SPF if it's not
coming from the MX. Yahoo might be doing the same.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Con
> So his MTA is EHLOing as mail.bobhoffman.com
> mail.bobhoffman.com resolves to 72.35.68.59 (matches the incoming ip)
> 72.35.68.59 reverses to bobhoffman.com (which doesn't match the host)
>
> As far as I can tell this will hurt his score.
> Or am I missing something?
I don't know enough of the
Andrew Norris wrote:
John Kordash wrote:
mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
Careful here. Email senders have nothing to do with MX records.
Email receivers do.
I believe bobhoffman.com is the email sender in this case.
I would doubt this is an issue. Any split in/out mail server is
Andrew Norris wrote:
John Kordash wrote:
mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
Careful here. Email senders have nothing to do with MX records.
Email receivers do.
I believe bobhoffman.com is the email sender in this case.
I would doubt this is an issue. Any split in/out mail server is g
Bob Hoffman wrote:
$ host 72.35.68.56
Host 56.68.35.72.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) $ host
72.35.68.57 Host 57.68.35.72.in-addr.arpa. not found:
3(NXDOMAIN) $ host 72.35.68.62 Host 62.68.35.72.in-addr.arpa.
not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
same for the IPs that don't belong to you in that
John Kordash wrote:
mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
Careful here. Email senders have nothing to do with MX records. Email
receivers do.
I believe bobhoffman.com is the email sender in this case.
I would doubt this is an issue. Any split in/out mail server is going to have
a differe
RobertH wrote:
> > That's why I asked which problem SPF is trying to solve.
>
> The SPF Qmail patch we use on CentOS Opsys has a special case for SPF from
> ALL
>
> And we discard on that signal...
I'd turn off the mail server if I don't want to get mails. So if I'm roaming
and am not sure which
>
> $ host 72.35.68.56
> Host 56.68.35.72.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) $ host
> 72.35.68.57 Host 57.68.35.72.in-addr.arpa. not found:
> 3(NXDOMAIN) $ host 72.35.68.62 Host 62.68.35.72.in-addr.arpa.
> not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> same for the IPs that don't belong to you in that netwo
Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> I have to say, in the 7 months or so since I got into this whole linux
> webserver, this is the most active thread I have ever encountered.
> I would assume most of us are a little unsure about the whole
> dkim/spf/sender id thing. And even according to the websites themsel
>
> That's something different (and still bad, but Yahoo is one
> of the gorillas who can decide not to follow RFCs when
> receiving mails). But scoring mails down because you don't
> like the hostname the PTR points to is plain bad and stupid.
> At least they don't reject those mails.
>
>
>
> That's probably the reason why much spam has valid spf records. Get
> yourself
> a throwaway domain, so you're getting through the domain check and give
> that
> domain a valid spf record which allows all machines in the world to send
> mail for that domain. Voilà - valid SPF record.
>
> Tha
Bob Hoffman wrote:
If we ignore the surrounding IPs (too many without rDNS), he
has a very simple setup, that should not cause any problems.
generic PTRs are a different matter.
Surrounding ips? A lot was from my computer to the smtp server..the rest was
just mine.
It is really simple, no
I have to say, in the 7 months or so since I got into this whole linux
webserver, this is the most active thread I have ever encountered.
I would assume most of us are a little unsure about the whole
dkim/spf/sender id thing. And even according to the websites themselves,
they are not sure of the
Andrew Norris wrote:
> Back to the PTR RR:
>
> $ dig +short MX bobhoffman.com
> 10 mail.bobhoffman.com.
>
> $ dig +short A mail.bobhoffman.com
> 72.35.68.59
> $ dig +short -x 72.35.68.59
> bobhoffman.com.
> ^^^
>
> mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
So why sh
>
> That's probably the reason why much spam has valid spf
> records. Get yourself a throwaway domain, so you're getting
> through the domain check and give that domain a valid spf
> record which allows all machines in the world to send mail
> for that domain. Voilà - valid SPF record.
>
>
RobertH wrote:
>
> Then I said
>
> "Setup proper SPF records for your domain(s) for one."
>
> Most properly setup mail servers do some sort of SPF checking nowadays and
> use the info at SMTP time or later in something like spamassasssin scoring
> etc
That's probably the reason why much spam ha
> Back to the PTR RR:
>
> $ dig +short MX bobhoffman.com
> 10 mail.bobhoffman.com.
>
> $ dig +short A mail.bobhoffman.com
> 72.35.68.59
> $ dig +short -x 72.35.68.59
> bobhoffman.com.
> ^^^
>
> mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
Careful here. Email senders
> If we ignore the surrounding IPs (too many without rDNS), he
> has a very simple setup, that should not cause any problems.
>
> generic PTRs are a different matter.
Surrounding ips? A lot was from my computer to the smtp server..the rest was
just mine.
It is really simple, not much in ther
Andrew Norris wrote:
Back to the PTR RR:
$ dig +short MX bobhoffman.com
10 mail.bobhoffman.com.
$ dig +short A mail.bobhoffman.com
72.35.68.59
$ dig +short -x 72.35.68.59
bobhoffman.com.
^^^
mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
so what?
mail.bobhoffman.co
Back to the PTR RR:
$ dig +short MX bobhoffman.com
10 mail.bobhoffman.com.
$ dig +short A mail.bobhoffman.com
72.35.68.59
$ dig +short -x 72.35.68.59
bobhoffman.com.
^^^
mail.bobhoffman.com != bobhoffman.com
This may not be your main problem, but it certainly
>
> I am pretty sure I am not bouncing mails...I have catchalls and they go to
> devnull..however I could be wrong since that only affects my domain mails
> only. I am sure there is something else I should do.
>
Bob
I am not sure why or what your basic policy on it is yet I think it is
better t
>
> That's supposed to help with what regarding his problem? OTOH I have no
> idea
> which problem SPF solves anyway other than making it harder for others to
> use your domain for fake adresses (if receiving mail servers do some sort
> of
> check against SPF).
>
> Ralph
Ralph,
He asked for he
And to let you know what the gmail headers look like when downloaded via
pop3
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.bobhoffman.com (bobhoffman.com [72.35.68.59])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
j13si11089358rne.4.2008.09.24.11.36.36;
Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:36:38 -0700
>
> You might want to show some logs or other evidence if you
> want people to help you.
>
> Ralph
You need logs to say you use DKIM/domain keys on your servers and how you
did it, rpm or compile?
Well, if it will help you tell me on your experience with DKIM I am up for
it!
YAHOO HEADERS
>
> Just a WAG, but make sure you have a PTR record for your
> machine that is sending email.
>
> If you actually got the bounce, check the headers, it is the
> first best place to look.
>
No, no bounce. They get delivered. Just show up in the spam folder
everytime.
___
> > Setup proper SPF records for your domain(s) for one.
>
> That's supposed to help with what regarding his problem? OTOH
> I have no idea which problem SPF solves anyway other than
> making it harder for others to use your domain for fake
> adresses (if receiving mail servers do some sort
> I'm running sendmail. The single number one issue is to never
> bounce email. Reject is fine, but if you have anything doing
> bounce you'll likely wind up on their blocklist for a day or
> few. Spammers love to use yahoo addresses as from addresses,
> so if you are bouncing any mail, you'
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Okay,
> Yahoo is bumming me. Only system my mail is having an issue with. All mail
> is accepted, but junked. I can only think it is the DKIM/Domain keys.
You might want to show some logs or other evidence if you want people to help
you.
Ralph
pgpdUBgyDVKoY.pgp
Description
> Okay,
> Yahoo is bumming me. Only system my mail is having an issue
> with. All mail
> is accepted, but junked. I can only think it is the DKIM/Domain keys.
Just a WAG, but make sure you have a PTR record for your machine that is
sending email.
If you actually got the bounce, check the headers
RobertH wrote:
>
>
> > Okay,
> > Yahoo is bumming me. Only system my mail is having an issue with. All mail
> > is accepted, but junked. I can only think it is the DKIM/Domain keys.
> >
>
> Setup proper SPF records for your domain(s) for one.
That's supposed to help with what regarding his pro
Bob Hoffman wrote:
Okay,
Yahoo is bumming me. Only system my mail is having an issue with. All mail
is accepted, but junked. I can only think it is the DKIM/Domain keys.
It is apparent that the dkim-milter is not part of the centos 5.x distro nor
is it part of the mirrors, as far as I can tell.
> Okay,
> Yahoo is bumming me. Only system my mail is having an issue with. All mail
> is accepted, but junked. I can only think it is the DKIM/Domain keys.
>
> It is apparent that the dkim-milter is not part of the centos 5.x distro
> nor
> is it part of the mirrors, as far as I can tell.
>
>
52 matches
Mail list logo
