Phillip Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/05/2004, at 11:10 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
>> Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> and if nobody enforces it all hell breaks loose.
>>
>> You mean, hell breaks loose in about the same way as when some people
>> h
On 4/05/2004, at 11:10 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cars have two registration plates, one on the front, and one on the
back. The police stop you if either is missing.
So these setups would be illegal:
i)MX 10 mail.example.com.
...because there
Stefan Hornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 13:10:19 +0200
> "Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Please stop these b0rken analogies, this is ridiculous.
>>
>> > The point is the standard is the standa
Correction interspersed below ...
Lloyd Zusman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Phillip Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> But this license-plate analogy only applies to the faulty MX record.
>>> According to the original poster, that site had _two_ MX records:
>>>
>>> MX 8 n.n.n.n.
On Tue, 4 May 2004 13:10:19 +0200
"Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Cars have two registration plates, one on the front, and one on the
> > back. The police stop you if either is missing.
>
> So these setups would be illegal:
>
> i)M
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Cars have two registration plates, one on the front, and one on the
> back. The police stop you if either is missing.
So these setups would be illegal:
i)MX 10 mail.example.com.
...because there's no license plate on the back?
ii) MX
Phillip Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But this license-plate analogy only applies to the faulty MX record.
>> According to the original poster, that site had _two_ MX records:
>>
>> MX 8 n.n.n.n. (faulty)
>> MX 10 mail.foobar.com. (correct)
>>
>> Why couldn't Co
But this license-plate analogy only applies to the faulty MX record.
According to the original poster, that site had _two_ MX records:
MX 8 n.n.n.n. (faulty)
MX 10 mail.foobar.com. (correct)
Why couldn't Courier try the correct MX record after the faulty one
fails? I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's exactly what I meant. *Mounting* the license plate on the roof is
>> bad, but *looking* for the license plate on the roof isn't -- if it's not
>> significantly more effort.
>
> If it looks like a license plate it must
I think the question is:
Why does it *need* to be fixed in the first place, except for the
reason
that it's not RFC compliant?
The way the internet works is defined by the RFCs. Imagine if for some
reason a car manufacturer decided to have the registration/licence
plate on the roof of the car,
Well, one thing that Courier _could_ do when it encounters an
unresolvable MX record would be to try the next MX record in the
series.
The original post said that the MX records look like this:
MX 8 n.n.n.n.
MX 10 mail.foobar.com.
In this case, Courier could t
Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> The way the internet works is defined by the RFCs. Imagine if for some
> reason a car manufacturer decided to have the registration/licence
> plate on the roof of the car, not on the back. Sure, it's still there,
> but it's not where it's supposed to be, and instead of ar
Julian Mehnle writes:
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MX records contain hostnames, not IP addresses. Normal processing of MX
records will result in the malformed MX record getting ignored (since
the A lookup on the hostname will fail).
So, with none the wiser, the MX record will be igno
On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:13:24 +0200
"Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> > The way the internet works is defined by the RFCs. Imagine if for some
> > reason a car manufacturer decided to have the registration/licence
> > plate on the roof of the car, not on the bac
Because obviously a significant number of people misinterprets the
RFC.
More likely, they just have no clue and never read this RFC.
I didn't read the RFC, but I have always used an A record for MX. It
just doesn't seem logical to put IP addresses in places other than A
records, the idea being t
Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If there are implementations that try to guess is something is an IP or
> a domain, than they can make wrong assumptions [...]
There's no need to guess. There are no official digit-only top-level
domains, and digit-only top-level domains are not widely u
>
> Isn't it possible to turn of BOFHCHECKDNS selectively in smtpaccess?
> (And yes, the sender should fix their systems!)
>
Yes, it is. If the offending MX is
MX 10 n.n.n.n
you can put
n.n.n.n allow,BOFHCHECKDNS=0
in smtpaccess.
Carey
Matthias Wimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Carey!
>
> Carey Jung schrieb am 2004-05-03 08:26:15:
>> Good question. It just adds to my administrative burden. Also, in my
>> current case, the sending MX records look like this:
>>
>> MX 8 n.n.n.n.
>
> By adding the final "."
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Your only option is to turn off BOFHCHECKDNS, which turns off ALL dns
checking, letting in all sorts of crap.
It's much better to tell the sender to fix their dns.
Isn't it possible to turn of BOFHCHECKDNS selectively in smtpaccess?
(And yes, the sender should fix their
Hi Carey!
Carey Jung schrieb am 2004-05-03 08:26:15:
> Good question. It just adds to my administrative burden. Also, in my
> current case, the sending MX records look like this:
>
> MX 8 n.n.n.n.
By adding the final "." to this record you already noticed, that also
what the
> Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > MX records contain hostnames, not IP addresses. Normal processing of MX
> > records will result in the malformed MX record getting ignored (since
> > the A lookup on the hostname will fail).
> >
> > So, with none the wiser, the MX record will be ignor
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MX records contain hostnames, not IP addresses. Normal processing of MX
> records will result in the malformed MX record getting ignored (since
> the A lookup on the hostname will fail).
>
> So, with none the wiser, the MX record will be ignored. This ma
Carey Jung writes:
Your only option is to turn off BOFHCHECKDNS, which turns off ALL dns
checking, letting in all sorts of crap.
It's much better to tell the sender to fix their dns.
Okay, I'll do that. In this case, the DNS hosting firm is local, so I
should be able to do this.
I'm curious, tho
>
> Your only option is to turn off BOFHCHECKDNS, which turns off ALL dns
> checking, letting in all sorts of crap.
>
> It's much better to tell the sender to fix their dns.
>
Okay, I'll do that. In this case, the DNS hosting firm is local, so I
should be able to do this.
I'm curious, though --
Carey Jung writes:
We're having problems receiving email from a domain. Getting the following
error:
517-MX records for blazierlaw.com violate section 3.3.9 of RFC 1035.
Whenever I've run across this in the past, I add an entry in esmtproutes
like
blazierlaw.com:[209.194.231.96]
esmtproutes af
Kirk A Wolff writes:
Sam,
I agree that this particular ISP isn't my problem, however I wonder if
courier tries more than the first three MX records even if they have
problems such as pointing to hostnames that don't resolve to A records or
having an IP address in them.
MX records that resolve to
From: "Sam Varshavchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kirk A Wolff writes:
> (brokendomain.com). He says that his ISP wants to keep the first few MX
> records broken, and that the problem is with MY mailserver.
How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become your
problem?
Sam,
I ag
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Gerardo Gregory wrote:
> P.S. Gerardo, I apologize for the last email.
>
> Dont sweat it. No offense taken.
>
> --
>
> At least you did not email me off list with profane slander as another
> individual who is responding to the thread did...
I know what you are all thinking.
Gerardo Gregory wrote:
P.S. Gerardo, I apologize for the last email.
Dont sweat it. No offense taken.
--
At least you did not email me off list with profane slander as another
individual who is responding to the thread did...
Well, technically, calling someone an asshole in private email doesn
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Re: RFC 1035 error V.S. First two MX entries
BAD for domain
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Kirk A Wolff wrote:
From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well if he would post the domain in question then I woul
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
Should courier waste cycles confirming the complete DNS structure of a
domain? no I don't think so...
If "the complete DNS structure of a domain" means walking down the full
list of MX records (or, if there are none, synthesized MX records) and
trying each one that has a nam
> -Original Message-
> > How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become
> > your problem?
>
> Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to
> deliver mail if
> there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
>
I share your pain here with th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger
> B.A. Klorese
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:02 PM
> To: Mitch (WebCob)
> Cc: 'Sam Varshavchik'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [courier-users] Re
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Re: RFC 1035 error V.S. First two MX entries
BAD for domain
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Kirk A Wolff wrote:
>
> > From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PR
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Kirk A Wolff wrote:
> From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well if he would post the domain in question then I would consider your
> > point. But all I have read today is using "brokendomain.com" as an
> example.
>
> If you are refering to me as 'he', I will answe
>>You question the term broken; I have explained several times that the
>>term broken for the first two entries implies that they do not have
>>corresponding 'A' records.
No associated A record? Explain to me how is one to resolve the
hostname in the MX field if we cannot resolve it to an IP.
From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well if he would post the domain in question then I would consider your
> point. But all I have read today is using "brokendomain.com" as an
example.
If you are refering to me as 'he', I will answer your question. I do not
wish to cause the admin of
Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
What you propose would be like making an auto bumper 1/4" high and
saying that if everyone followed the spec there would be no non-bumper
collisions.
But there are standards for auto bumper safety, and every car manufacturer
is required to meet them. Meeting the bump
> How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become
> your problem?
Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to deliver mail if
there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
---
The SF.Net emai
Well if he would post the domain in question then I would consider your
point. But all I have read today is using "brokendomain.com" as an example.
How do you know what MX record is working or not? Whats the domain name?
Let me do some queries using nslookup, then I might be more open to
dis
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
It took me a while Roger, but I've come to agree (with the occasional client
inspired nagging doubt). A solid product that works and follows the rules vs.
one that accepts anything remotely appropriate thrown at it and muddles through.
The problem here, is not courier, but tha
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger
> B.A. Klorese
> Sent: January 21, 2004 4:21 PM
> To: 'Sam Varshavchik'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [courier-users] Re: RFC 1035 error V.S. First two MX
>
> Explain me your ideology here...it is either a CORRECT one or NOT.
It doesn't matter if any of them are incorrect/broken. It only matters if
*all* of them are. Just as you shouldn't refuse to access foo.bar.com
because an A record for zap.bar.com is malformed, you shouldn't refuse to
try the
Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to deliver mail >if there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
So explain to me the difference between a "broken" MX record and an
incorrect one? Their is none...is there?
Explain me your ideology here...it is eith
> And I'll make a case that broken DNS records are a sign of an
> incompetently-administered ISP, and that it's been
> historically shown that
> incompetently-administered ISPs typically have other
> problems, such as open
> relays and hacked proxies, and zombies.
Great -- now we have *softwa
Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become
your problem?
Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to deliver mail if
there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
And I'll make a case that broken DNS records are a
Kirk A Wolff writes:
that exists today. I have lightly reviewed the code in the file
courier/courier/rfc1035/rfc1035mxlist.c. It seems to me that what is
happening is only the first three MX entries are used. Please correct me on
this!
There's nothing in rfc1035mxlist.c that discards fourth, an
Kirk A Wolff writes:
(brokendomain.com). He says that his ISP wants to keep the first few MX
records broken, and that the problem is with MY mailserver.
How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become your problem?
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Howdy,
Whenever I try to send an email thru courier-esmtpd via Outlook Express
(& maybe other mail clients) esmtpd denies it with:
Nov 25 10:25:56 [courieresmtpd] error,relay=xx.xx.xx.xx,from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
517-Domain does not exist: xx.com.
Nov 25 10:25:56
49 matches
Mail list logo
