Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-26 Thread Schuh, Richard
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:26 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject:Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit They are wasting your time. The only information you have given us is a r= ange of 19nnn-29nnn port numbers. Those could be literally

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-25 Thread Alan Ackerman
They are wasting your time. The only information you have given us is a r ange of 19nnn-29nnn port numbers. Those could be literally anything, and the same numbers could be used for something else the next day. It's absurd for them to expect you to go back six months. I f they cannot trap

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-23 Thread Schuh, Richard
, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:50 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject:Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit Usually, high port numbers are assigned

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-22 Thread Dave Wade
mine, I can arrange for it to be in some exotic location. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:43 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-21 Thread Alan Ackerman
] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:43 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit On Thursday, 10/19/2006 at 03:28 MST, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Miguel. That solves the mystery of Verify Client. Since we

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-20 Thread Alan Altmark
On Thursday, 10/19/2006 at 03:28 MST, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Miguel. That solves the mystery of Verify Client. Since we are not allowed to receive mail, our problem (flooding a firewall with disconnected packets) is not likely to be solved with that exit.

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-20 Thread Schuh, Richard
z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:43 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit On Thursday, 10/19/2006 at 03:28 MST, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Miguel. That solves

SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-19 Thread Schuh, Richard
The following is a snippet of a SMTPVERX EXEC: Trace 'OFF' retstring='' return_code=0 Parse Source . . exec_name . I_dent=Verify

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-19 Thread Miguel Delapaz
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on 10/19/2006 01:59:47 PM: ... After SMTP is up and running, we have successfully sent several e- mails to outside recipients. Nothing shows up on the SMTP console. We have tried changing the say to a 'CP MSG userid ... to no avail;

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-19 Thread Schuh, Richard
Thanks, Miguel. That solves the mystery of Verify Client. Since we are not allowed to receive mail, our problem (flooding a firewall with disconnected packets) is not likely to be solved with that exit. Originally, we were told that it was e-mail. Today, we got firewall monitors to check

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-19 Thread Miguel Delapaz
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on 10/19/2006 03:28:44 PM: ... Originally, we were told that it was e-mail. Today, we got firewall monitors to check the message meaning, and the word from Cisco that it is a generic packet that has no specific connection in the

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-19 Thread Schuh, Richard
It apparently started in June or July. We were not made aware of it until this month. I say "apparently" because we have not been getting the full story. There were no changes that we were made aware of, we usually don't know about changes to the network until something

Re: SMTP Verify Client Exit

2006-10-19 Thread Miguel Delapaz
Well, we should probably stop doing anything until #1 is resolved :-), but I'll give you some follow-ups anyway... 1. It apparently started in June or July. We were not made aware of it until this month. I say apparently because we have not been getting the full story. Ah! Herein lies the