On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 15:22, Peter Kiem wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> > > Sorry John, no it doesn't. If you are on a DHCP assigned address then
> you
> > > should be relaying email through your ISP not directly out.
> >
> > Can you explain why a DHCP address shoud not do a direct SMTP connect
> please?
>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Peter Kiem wrote:
>
> There ARE alternatives to running mailservers from dynamic addresses but
> some people are just too damn stubborn :)
>
What are these alternatives that you mention?
Mark
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.r
Martin Moss wrote:
Having travelled to and From the US internally and Internationally over the
years, I can honestly state that I was apalled by the lack of security
compared to European flights - before 9/11. I guess that because Europe has
lived with terrorism for hundreds of years its way ahead
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 14:02, John P Verel wrote:
>
> On 06/18/03 10:07 -0400, John P Verel wrote:
> >
> > On 06/18/03 06:42 -0400, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> > >
> > > Not all mail cients include that capability.
> > Correct. I use Mutt as my client, Sendmail to drop off to my ISP and
> > Fetch
Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
I don't have a static IP, but I have a static hostname. www.no-ip.com is
your friend. :)
I already have an account at dyndns.org
--
Wielder of the mighty +1 LARTsaber of Unsubscribe Instructions At End of
Message,
the +3 Clue-by-Four of No Attachments to a Mailing List
Daryl Hunt wrote:
Sounds like you may need a better provider if one is available. It seems
the areas that are abused the most are from areas that offer the least
services.
There are two other ISP's in town, both are more expensive for their
basic broad band service
--
Wielder of the mighty +1
Bret Hughes wrote:
Looking through my spam folder to which procmail sends all stuff tagged
by spamassassin I see a lot of stuff from various names but niether the
the originating machine or the first server if it did not go straight to
verio (my webhosting co) have nothing to do with yahoo bigfo
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 16:47, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> Bret Hughes wrote:
>
> > It is analogous to spending 30 minutes in a security line at an airport
> > and having to check your pocket knife because of the terrorist activity
> > in our current environment.
> >
> > Bret
> >
> >
>
> Sorry,
John Nichel wrote:
Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Kalus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't mind having my own fixed IP but they are hard to come by
these
days.
I bought mine.
They aren't exactly cheap though. For me to get a static IP
Peter Kiem wrote:
Hi John,
(my account has one static and 5 dynamic ip's). I use the static for my
business website, my mail server is on one of the dynamic ip's, and a
Why don't you run your mailserver on the same IP as your website? They can
co-exist happily you know :)
Regards,
+--
Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Kalus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't mind having my own fixed IP but they are hard to come by
these
days.
I bought mine.
They aren't exactly cheap though. For me to get a static IP from my
current ISP wo
Daryl Hunt wrote:
No gray area at all. You are running a Dynamic IP which will not pass the
Reverse DNS lookup many email servers (including mine) will do when you
attempt to send it.
My mail server does have reverse DNS. At least that is what DynDNS.org
states...DNS isn't my strong point.
-
Bret Hughes wrote:
It is analogous to spending 30 minutes in a security line at an airport
and having to check your pocket knife because of the terrorist activity
in our current environment.
Bret
Sorry, that's BS. Had those passengers eigher A) been more ballsy or B)
been allowed to have wea
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 16:00, Peter Kiem wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> > You awesome too much. For one thing, I don't run an MTA (nor a web
> > server anymore due to the high CPU demand of RH9). But I do have
> > relatives I might possibly be unable to email because of AOL's shit
> > policy. I think it's ve
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 16:10, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 06:05:33AM +1000, Peter Kiem wrote:
> > > I am a home user, running stock Red Hat 9, using Sendmail. The only
> > > "server" software I run on this box is MySQL, for local use only. I do
> > > not run any DHCP sofware on this
Peter Kiem wrote:
Hi Joseph,
It's very safe to assume that, but it's not always the case. On occasion
I've been known to pop open pine and send an email from there.
And pine does direct to remote SMTP email? Doubt it. Surely you had to
configure a POP3 and SMTP server in Pine so it knew how t
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 15:18, Michael Kalus wrote:
> AOL is NOT doing a reverse lookup all they are doing is seeing that the IP
> address belongs to an upstream provider and is not part of their "declared"
> mail servers and drops the message.
>
if you do a reverse lookup on your ip address,
does
Bret Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:11, rm wrote:
It's of course their right to block whatever they want, but I too believe it to
be both poor business and ineffective spam control. Aol lost 1 million subscribers in the
last 6 months, and are projected to lose another 1 million in the ne
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 15:38, Peter Kiem wrote:
> Michael, Michael, Michael,
>
> > Try telnetting to your mailserver on port 25, you can send the message
> > directly, no server on your end involved. It's all plain Text.
> >
> > All an SMTP Server does is follow the protocol but any human being can
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:57, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > While they may be running MAPS or SPEWS also, what they are doing here
> > is different. They are blocking (as explained to me) ALL IP's that
> > they've defined as "residential." My IP doesn't show up in MAPS or
> > SPEWS, but my mail
Peter Kiem wrote:
Because eventually I want to run a web hosting/design business and I
think it's cheaper to re-invent the wheel (you learn a helluva lot mroe
too) then pay $300+ month for decent, reliable hosting (I say
$300+/month because my company is also going to be hosting an extremely
high b
Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:25:06PM -0500, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Unfortunately I am without funds to do so. The cheapest DSL access
(offered by local telco co-op) is approx. $30 more a month then our
cable modem, otherwise I would (and be hap
Peter Kiem wrote:
Joseph,
You awesome too much. For one thing, I don't run an MTA (nor a web
server anymore due to the high CPU demand of RH9). But I do have
relatives I might possibly be unable to email because of AOL's shit
policy. I think it's very relevant.
If you don't run an MTA then how
Hi Brett,
> and if AOL can work with other ISPs to take an aggressive stance to
> eliminate as much of it as possible I say more power to them. Perhaps
The problem is they are controlling the spam coming IN to them, not OUT from
them!
We need all the large ISPs to tackle the problem BOTH ways!
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:11, rm wrote:
> It's of course their right to block whatever they want, but I too believe it to
> be both poor business and ineffective spam control. Aol lost 1 million subscribers
> in the
> last 6 months, and are projected to lose another 1 million in the next 6 months
Drew Weaver wrote:
Unfortunately I am without funds to do so. The cheapest DSL access
(offered by local telco co-op) is approx. $30 more a month then our
cable modem, otherwise I would (and be happily running websites off my
box, or not, RH9 sucks up a shit load of resources)
In these scenari
Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Not always possible. Only have the cable company, Co-op telco (Baby Bell
called Ben Lomand Rural Telephone Co-Op (although they now also operate
in the city (to compete with Citizens/Frontier I imagine))), and
Frontier (a Citizens Communications Company). From BLomand, a
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:25:06PM -0500, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Unfortunately I am without funds to do so. The cheapest DSL access
(offered by local telco co-op) is approx. $30 more a month then our
cable modem, otherwise I would (and be happily running websites off
Peter Kiem wrote:
They aren't exactly cheap though. For me to get a static IP from my
current ISP would cost me $300+ a MONTH.
Then by god get a new ISP.
Not always possible I guess.
FWIW, 8 static IPs on my DSL service cost $100 a YEAR!
Damn
It is worth shopping around.
Not always possible. O
Drew Weaver wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Kalus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't mind having my own fixed IP but they are hard to come by
these
days.
I bought mine.
They aren't exactly cheap though. For me to get a static IP from my
current ISP would cost me $300+ a MONTH.
> While they may be running MAPS or SPEWS also, what they are doing here
> is different. They are blocking (as explained to me) ALL IP's that
> they've defined as "residential." My IP doesn't show up in MAPS or
> SPEWS, but my mail is still rejected from aol.
>
I feverently advise against using S
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:23, Ray Abbitt wrote:
> Sounds like they may be using the MAPS (Mail Abuse Prevention System)
> DUL (Dial Up Listing). Most of the addresses on this list were
> reported to the list by the ISP's responsible for them. And lots of
> systems other than AOL use this list.
>
On 17 Jun 2003, rm wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 13:47, Daryl Hunt wrote:
> >
> > I run statics that match the DNS MX records. When a reverse DNS lookup
> > happens, it all matches. AOL checks this as well as do I. Too many servers
I don't think they check for the reverse lookup matching the
Daryl Hunt wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Kalus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't mind having my own fixed IP but they are hard to come by these
days.
I bought mine.
They aren't exactly cheap though. For me to get a static IP from my
current ISP would cost me $300+ a MONTH.
-
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 13:47, Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> I run statics that match the DNS MX records. When a reverse DNS lookup
> happens, it all matches. AOL checks this as well as do I. Too many servers
> out there are set to relay. Setup your servers to only be relayed by those
> people that are
John Nichel wrote:
Drew Weaver wrote:
Since you're probably violating your ISPs ToS anyway I guess it doesnt
matter if AOL doesn't accept your mail.
-Drew
Yes and no. I have a business account, and am allowed to run things
such as web servers and mail servers. In their business TOS, it says
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 10:37, Andrew MacKenzie wrote:
> FYI for anyone running qmail locally, there is a way to direct email
> destined for a specific domain through another mail server (your upstream
> providers smtp server comes to mind). Add the following line to
> /var/qmail/control/smtproutes
Drew Weaver wrote:
Since you're probably violating your ISPs ToS anyway I guess it doesnt
matter if AOL doesn't accept your mail.
-Drew
Yes and no. I have a business account, and am allowed to run things
such as web servers and mail servers. In their business TOS, it says
nothing about me runni
Drew Weaver wrote:
Do you run a mail server on a DHCP address? this makes perfect sense not to
accept email from SMTP servers on dynamic addresses.
-Drew
I do. But this notice means little to me, I don't email anyone at AOL
anyway.
Friends don't let friends use AOL.
--
redhat-list mailing list
39 matches
Mail list logo
