Naming convention invalid (local) domain

2002-09-23 Thread Robert Ian Smit
As some of you may have noticed, the MIDs that (my) exim generates, are not correct. In my local network all hosts have ofcourse a host name, but none have a domain name. I am using dyndns, and was wondering if I could use my subdomain from that service as a domain. I only use dyndns to be able t

Re: Naming convention invalid (local) domain

2002-09-23 Thread Carel Fellinger
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 01:16:52AM +0200, Robert Ian Smit wrote: ... > I am using dyndns, and was wondering if I could use my subdomain > from that service as a domain. I only use dyndns to be able to log yes ofcourse (I take it you mean .dyndns.org). You know, a valid domainname doesn't imply t

Re: Naming convention invalid (local) domain

2002-09-23 Thread nate
Robert Ian Smit said: > I could ofcourse also make up a domain name. For instance robian.inv or > something like that. Would that make more sense than just @robian in the > MID? I want to be sure that should my domainname ever "get out", (i.e. > mail headers) I don't cause problems or confuse peo

Re: Naming convention invalid (local) domain

2002-09-23 Thread Robert Ian Smit
Thanks, Carel and Nate * nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [24-09-2002 03:26]: > > I could ofcourse also make up a domain name. For instance robian.inv or > > something like that. > if you don't own a domain I would make one up, and would try to > make one that is not taken, but something that is unusual

Re: Naming convention invalid (local) domain

2002-09-24 Thread Mark L. Kahnt
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 03:01, Robert Ian Smit wrote: [***SNIP!!!***] > On a slightly related noted. How expensive is a pop-request (i.e. > fetchmail) for the pop3 server. Since my isp is currently having > problems with their mail systems, I was wondering, if they would be > annoyed (perhaps, rig

Re: Naming convention invalid (local) domain

2002-09-24 Thread Carel Fellinger
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:01:54AM +0200, Robert Ian Smit wrote: ... > I think that would be the address rewriting rule that by default > looks in /etc/email-addresses. I never liked it very much to have > user stuff like that in /etc, but at the time it was the only way I That's because it's her