On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:24:37 -0500, Ben Kamen wrote
> Really?? When I guess TI.com (Yes, Texas Instruments - one of thr
> world leaders in semiconductor technology) hasn't found that check-
> box yet.
I believe it does require a more current version of MS exchange as well (or so
I am told) so Ex
James Ebright wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:53:38 -0500, Ben Kamen wrote
This is a misconfiguration of MS exhchange, it can be configured to return the
SMTP response code and message, it just does not do it out of the box.
Really?? When I guess TI.com (Yes, Texas Instruments - one of thr world lead
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:53:38 -0500, Ben Kamen wrote
> Not if they run MS Exchange. I've testing online with a user while I
> had him on the phone.. all MS says is something bland like, "Can't
> deliver mail"... even though my server sends back a very descript
> failure code and message.
This is
James Ebright wrote:
Well, we have ended up only running the hard reject in the hack, the temp
fails eventually ended up proving that many people/companies running mail
servers really should not be! :-P
Tell us about it. (grumble grumble)
The hard reject in the hack seems to work well, has not yet
Well, we have ended up only running the hard reject in the hack, the temp
fails eventually ended up proving that many people/companies running mail
servers really should not be! :-P
To run the hack without the tempfails simply comment out the and
lines and remake your cf file (remember to use a
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:47, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> On 4/27/2005 16:36, James Ebright wrote:
>
> > Honestly, in your case I would use CNAMES liberally and make your MX server
> > the same as the PTR reverses but have customers still use the CNAME for
> > their
> > MUA configurations. This will not
On 4/27/2005 16:36, James Ebright wrote:
> Honestly, in your case I would use CNAMES liberally and make your MX server
> the same as the PTR reverses but have customers still use the CNAME for their
> MUA configurations. This will not appear any different to the end user but
> will bring you into
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:14:20 -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote
> If you do strict reverse checking you'll definitely throw out valid mail.
> You'll just have to see if that's OK or how much BOFH you can get
> away with.
Niel's hack only tempfails in the scenario where there is a PTR but it does
not matc
> As an aside, I think Carl et al have done a great job at turning around
> one of the biggest spam problems of a few years ago. I remember when most
> spam I got came from AOL.
I certainly agree there -- as an ISP receiving roughly 700k-1 million
messages per day, we receive the least amount of
On 4/26/2005 09:58, James Ebright wrote:
> Hello all, this is a bit off topic but relevant.
>
> We finally decided it was probably time to implement AOL style reverse DNS
> checks into our MTA. Since AOL has been doing it now for something like 6
> months it is a pretty fair bet that most US custo
> Then they get it. *THEN* they realize how unreliable email is becoming.
I made the same comment a few days ago. Email has lost all reliability
because of SPAM. If you send a letter you take it for granted it arrives.
If you send a fax you assume it gets there but it sometimes has problems
gett
James Ebright wrote:
You can whitelist users or entire domains from the rDNS check in your access
file using Niel's hack.
I know... but it just seemed that while I was playing by all the rules, the
slobs were just making my access file grow to biblical proportions. (shaking
head some more)
Well,
You can whitelist users or entire domains from the rDNS check in your access
file using Niel's hack.
I would rather whitelist a single domain than turn it off entirely if you had
been using it since december with only a little fallout.
Add:
rdns:1.2.3.4 OK
rdns:@somehost.com OK
to whiteli
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:21:23PM -0400, Rich West wrote:
> Personally, we've looked in to it. We tend to agree that AOL's position
> is somewhat aggressive since their techs are usually behind the time and
We've found it highly effective when combined with other RFC related
checks. No RDNS w
Rich West wrote:
Personally, we've looked in to it. We tend to agree that AOL's position
is somewhat aggressive since their techs are usually behind the time and
don't support their own new technologies well. But, political opinions
aside, we were leary about implementing it because, frankly,
Personally, we've looked in to it. We tend to agree that AOL's position
is somewhat aggressive since their techs are usually behind the time and
don't support their own new technologies well. But, political opinions
aside, we were leary about implementing it because, frankly, we were
afraid o
16 matches
Mail list logo
