-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] DNS issue
I would presume that if you pinged the machine you would get the old address
as well. Look at the box you are doing the testing from and make sure it
has correct DNS servers. The nslookup may not be using the same DNS as the
box. It us
gated throughout the internet, and
shouldn't telnet and ping use the contents of /etc/resolv.conf to resolve
FQDN's?
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Phil Leinhauser [mailto:p...@teqknow.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 9:13 AM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject
I would presume that if you pinged the machine you would get the old address as
well. Look at the box you are doing the testing from and make sure it has
correct DNS servers. The nslookup may not be using the same DNS as the box.
It usually does but you can change it with the "lserver" comman
Kent Busbee wrote:
> See response WithIn; Dan McAllister wrote:
>> I'm a little johnny-come-lately on this discussion, but here's my
>> 2-cents worth:
>>
>> First, let's be clear on something -- with the exception of your own
>> LAN, you do not control, nor does your server answer for a reverse-DNS
See response WithIn; Dan McAllister wrote:
> I'm a little johnny-come-lately on this discussion, but here's my
> 2-cents worth:
>
> First, let's be clear on something -- with the exception of your own
> LAN, you do not control, nor does your server answer for a reverse-DNS
> lookup. DJBDNS, Bind,
I'm a little johnny-come-lately on this discussion, but here's my
2-cents worth:
First, let's be clear on something -- with the exception of your own
LAN, you do not control, nor does your server answer for a reverse-DNS
lookup. DJBDNS, Bind, or even windoze DNS servers answer for NAME
lookup
Kent Busbee wrote:
> See response below; Eric Shubert wrote:
>> spamdyke is filtering because the sender isn't authorizing itself.
>> The simplest (and safest) solution is to have all senders authorize
>> themselves. If they're authorized then all spamdyke filters are bypassed,
>> and you don't hav
See response below; Eric Shubert wrote:
> spamdyke is filtering because the sender isn't authorizing itself.
> The simplest (and safest) solution is to have all senders authorize
> themselves. If they're authorized then all spamdyke filters are bypassed,
> and you don't have to worry about rDNS fo
Thanks for the answers, guys. Sorry for the delay. MAN, have we had some
nasty weather down here. Tornadoes, hail, and rain - lots of it. My
house is surrounded by a lake - made by the rain. Ok to the issues:
Somehow the power outages, and maybe a fat finger or two messed up the
date on the s
are you using spamdyke?
have you try add 192.168.1.19 on /etc/hosts?
Kent Busbee wrote:
I have an email server DNS issue that I need advice on. When our
accounting software sends an email I get the following error:
01-01 02:26:24 DENIED_RDNS_MISSING from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Kent Busbee wrote:
I have an email server DNS issue that I need advice on. When our
accounting software sends an email I get the following error:
Your time is also busted on your email server. This message came in as
dated on Jan 1, 2006.
---
spamdyke is filtering because the sender isn't authorizing itself.
The simplest (and safest) solution is to have all senders authorize
themselves. If they're authorized then all spamdyke filters are bypassed,
and you don't have to worry about rDNS for your local network (which is
otherwise fruitles
12 matches
Mail list logo