Yes, that was obviously a very remote possibility. Just a few more = thoughts.
If they are blocking you or some of the domains you host take a look at their guidelines page: http://advertising.msn.com/adproducts/Email_TechStd.asp there is a "documentation section" which explain how to contact them, = might be worth trying. They also say somewhere that they might contact you at = [EMAIL PROTECTED] when you get blacklisted (this sounds like an automated process), so be = sure to have that account for *any domain* you host. Another thing I've noticed is that many times they are unable to handle = the load they have ... and if you have little bandwidth available between = your server and them could result in infinite timeouts, dropped connections = .... Dario -----Messaggio originale----- Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] = Per conto di Edinilson J. Santos Inviato: luned=EC 14 marzo 2005 16.18 A: xmail@xmailserver.org Oggetto: [xmail] Re: R: Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com About brazilian spammers, it isn't the case because some others friends, = from others brazilians ISPs (some using xmail too BUT in freebsd) are=20 sending email to hotmail.com without problems. We published spf records a week ago to try to solve the problem but it = still continues. We have freebsd here, OF COURSE, but for firewall and bandwidth control = in=20 some perimeters. On these boxes we have djbdns running. I tried to use theses dns servers in SmartDNSHost (server.tab) but = without=20 success too. Thanks Edinilson --------------------------------------------------------- ATINET-Professional Web Hosting Tel Voz: (0xx11) 4412-0876 http://www.atinet.com.br ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Dario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <xmail@xmailserver.org> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: [xmail] R: Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com I agree, it's still a proposed standard, but it seems to be in use as windows 2003 ships with EDNS0 activated. Although I don't think this is the problem Edinilson has. Looking at his previous email (with the spool files) the dns server is resolving hotmail.com fine. Could it be that hotmail is getting too much spam from brazilian ip address space and they just drop anything from it, at least in those moments, when spammers are very very active? And yes, it would be a better world without that buggy, memory eating MS = DNS service. Bind works also on windows, but not many people seem to know = that. Dario -----Messaggio originale----- Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] = Per conto di Tracy Inviato: domenica 13 marzo 2005 18.05 A: xmail@xmailserver.org Oggetto: [xmail] Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com According to my reading of RFC2671,those are optional extensions and do = not override the original specification in RFC1035. While it is certainly possible for a client to support them (and perhaps even an "expected behavior" in today's Internet), I don't see anything there that = indicates that their adoption is a requirement.... (It's actually a non-issue for me, locally, as I support whatever BIND 9.2.4 supports, and I'm not doing any packet length checks at the = firewall for DNS packets - but doubtless there are those who are, and I don't see anything in RFC2671 that requires them to change) At 09:46 3/13/2005, Dario wrote: >That should be in RFC 2671... > >Dario > >-----Messaggio originale----- >Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] = Per >conto di Tracy >Inviato: domenica 13 marzo 2005 14.43 >A: xmail@xmailserver.org >Oggetto: [xmail] Re: Problems with hotmail.com > >At 00:09 3/13/2005, Kroll, David wrote: > >This is a Win2003 DNS issue. > >Some mailservers behind firewalls which do not allow transfer of UDP >packets > >larger than 512 bytes may not be able to return the MX record > > > >If your firewall restricts UDP packet transfers though, you may want = to > >verify that it will allow transfer of a MX record within the size > >limitations specified by RFC1035: > > > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html > > > >Windows 2003 server has included Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) = to > >allow larger packets. If you run this command on a 2003 server: = "dnscmd > >Server Name/Config /EnableEDnsProbes 0", it fixes it without making = any > >changes to the firewall. > >OK, did I miss something, or have UDP-based DNS messages been changed = since >the last time I looked? > ><checks RFC1035> > >Nope... Still a 512 octet message length (section 2.3.4). Any UDP-based = DNS >message longer than that is not RFC compliant, and (IMHO) should be >blocked. That's why there's a method to fall back to TCP when there's = more >data to be returned than will fit in a 512 octet message.... > >If there's an RFC that allows larger packets in UDP, could you = reference it >please? > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
