--On 21 February 2008 17:13:38 +0100 Yves Goergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So as you were so kind to squal on me, do you have any solid reasons why
> today (in the year 2008) anybody would need a postmaster mailbox? I
> guess you have never used a postmaster address in your life nor looked
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 22:05 +, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> > As it stands, .de (amongst others) have chosen to deviate - for their
> > own specific reasons - from RFC3912 and have, therefore, been listed in
> > whois.rfc-ignorant.org. Many other ccTLDs are the same, as well as many
> > SLDs.
- Original Message -
From: "Graeme Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "exim users"
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [exim] Unwanted bounce messages generated locally
> As it stands, .de (amongst others) have chosen to deviate - for
W B Hacker wrote:
Some other tlds are listed for good reasons (i.e.: .be, .eu).
'Good reason'?
whois microsoft.de returns full info
whois microsoft.be returns stupid and useless info
whois microsoft.eu yelds even more useless info
So in my sense .de should not be listed, but .be and .eu
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:25 +, W B Hacker wrote:
> By stupidly listing entire *countries* rfc-ignorant does do harm. More
> harm than good.
Note: I'm not tub-thumping on anyone's behalf here, I am merely trying
to proffer an objective POV...
They publish their listing criteria. They operate
On 21.02.2008 22:21 CE(S)T, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> Why shouldn't they list the entire .de TLD ?
Sure. Has anybody tried some of this world's major domains yet? Most of
them are on either one of the postmaster or abuse list, some even on
both. I still believe that it was a good decision t
Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "W B Hacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "exim users"
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [exim] Unwanted bounce messages generated locally
>
>
>> The
On 21.02.2008 21:38 CE(S)T, Renaud Allard wrote:
>> do you have any solid reasons why today (in the year 2008) anybody
>> would need a postmaster mailbox?
>
> To receive mails from people who are wrongly filtered. The contacts on
> the whois page cannot be used if you still don't accept their mai
Renaud Allard wrote:
>
>
> W B Hacker wrote:
>
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> The very same folks who listed the entire '.de' for two years
>> 'coz *they* (the rfc-ignorami, not the Deutsche) didn't know how to
>> make a proper 'whois' query?
>>
>> And - last time I looked, *still* list other entire <.tld
- Original Message -
From: "W B Hacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "exim users"
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [exim] Unwanted bounce messages generated locally
> The very same folks who listed the entire '.de' for two year
W B Hacker wrote:
ROFLMAO!
The very same folks who listed the entire '.de' for two years 'coz
*they* (the rfc-ignorami, not the Deutsche) didn't know how to make a
proper 'whois' query?
And - last time I looked, *still* list other entire <.tld>s?
The .de generally comes in every discu
Nigel Metheringham wrote:
On 21 Feb 2008, at 16:14, Yves Goergen wrote:
On 21.02.2008 14:16 CE(S)T, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
[ Nigel Metheringham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Oops, you're listed yourself at rfc-ignorant. I guess you don't take
that service for real, too, hm? ;)
Hmm...
Renaud Allard wrote:
>
> Yves Goergen wrote:
>> On 21.02.2008 13:16 CE(S)T, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>>> ...noting that you should *always* accept [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> (it's an RFC mandate).
>> I don't know anybody who really cares about that RFC postmaster account.
>> Neither me nor my clients need
Yves Goergen wrote:
Thank you very much, Nigel. Should I now hate you for that? Well, should
be no problem to get off it again.
Indeed, but you can only do it once. The second time, they won't remove
you as they know you will put the ban back.
Away, the entire rfc-ignorant site
seems a
On 21 Feb 2008, at 16:14, Yves Goergen wrote:
> On 21.02.2008 14:16 CE(S)T, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>> [ Nigel Metheringham
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> Oops, you're listed yourself at rfc-ignorant. I guess you don't take
> that service for real, too, hm? ;)
Hmm... thats sort of emb
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Yves Goergen wrote:
> Thank you very much, Nigel. Should I now hate you for that? Well, should
> be no problem to get off it again. Anyway, the entire rfc-ignorant site
> seems a bit broken, since *.de is on the whois list... What is a service
> worth that "blocks out" *all
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Yves Goergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So as you were so kind to squal on me, do you have any solid reasons why
> today (in the year 2008) anybody would need a postmaster mailbox? I
> guess you have never used a postmaster address in your life nor looked
> i
Hi
Firstly, please keep the bitching off the list, gentlemen. Take it
somewhere else.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 17:13 +0100, Yves Goergen wrote:
> So as you were so kind to squal on me, do you have any solid reasons why
> today (in the year 2008) anybody would need a postmaster mailbox?
Because "[E
On 21.02.2008 14:16 CE(S)T, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2008, at 12:53, Renaud Allard wrote:
>> Yves Goergen wrote:
>>> On 21.02.2008 13:16 CE(S)T, Graeme Fowler wrote:
...noting that you should *always* accept [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(it's an RFC mandate).
>>> I don't know anybody wh
On 21.02.2008 14:16 CE(S)T, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> [ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Oops, you're listed yourself at rfc-ignorant. I guess you don't take
that service for real, too, hm? ;)
--
Yves Goergen "LonelyPixel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Visit my web laboratory at http://
On 21 Feb 2008, at 12:53, Renaud Allard wrote:
> Yves Goergen wrote:
>> On 21.02.2008 13:16 CE(S)T, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>>> ...noting that you should *always* accept [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> (it's an RFC mandate).
>>
>> I don't know anybody who really cares about that RFC postmaster
>> account.
>>
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:48 +0100, Yves Goergen wrote:
> I don't know anybody who really cares about that RFC postmaster account.
Well... there's a lot that can be said about this, but it's been said
elsewhere so I'll leave that argument for another time.
> My idea was, letting the initial SMTP
Yves Goergen wrote:
> On 21.02.2008 13:16 CE(S)T, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>> ...noting that you should *always* accept [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (it's an RFC mandate).
>
> I don't know anybody who really cares about that RFC postmaster account.
> Neither me nor my clients need it, so we're not going to
On 21.02.2008 13:16 CE(S)T, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> ...noting that you should *always* accept [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (it's an RFC mandate).
I don't know anybody who really cares about that RFC postmaster account.
Neither me nor my clients need it, so we're not going to open that
standardised spam ha
On 21.02.2008 13:06 CE(S)T, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> You need 'verify = recipient' in your RCPT ACL.
I see, a bit further up "postmaster" is always accepted. I'm going to
remove that part of the configuration. That should do the trick for
local unknown users.
--
Yves Goergen "LonelyPixel" <[EMAIL
On 21.02.2008 13:06 CE(S)T, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 21/02/2008, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1) When a message comes in for a mailbox that doesn't exist (unknown
>> user), the message doesn't seem to be rejected at first instance but a
>> bounce mail is generated that cannot be deliv
On 21 Feb 2008, at 12:06, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 21/02/2008, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 1) When a message comes in for a mailbox that doesn't exist (unknown
>> user), the message doesn't seem to be rejected at first instance
>> but a
>> bounce mail is generated that cannot
Hi
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 12:55 +0100, Yves Goergen wrote:
> 1) When a message comes in for a mailbox that doesn't exist (unknown
> user), the message doesn't seem to be rejected at first instance but a
> bounce mail is generated that cannot be delivered and ends up frozen in
> the queue. How ca
On 21/02/2008, Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm currently investigating why my Exim mail server queue slowly fills
> up with frozen messages. Now I have found two things that I don't like.
>
> 1) When a message comes in for a mailbox that doesn't exist (unknown
> user), the
Hello,
I'm currently investigating why my Exim mail server queue slowly fills
up with frozen messages. Now I have found two things that I don't like.
1) When a message comes in for a mailbox that doesn't exist (unknown
user), the message doesn't seem to be rejected at first instance but a
boun
30 matches
Mail list logo
