On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Dario wrote:
> Seems like this thread takes those blu pills ;)
>
> ErrCode = -232
> ..
> SMTP-Error = "417 Temporary delivery error"
> SMTP-SERVER = "mx1.hotmail.com" <-- whatever you get here, if this is the
> right mx for the domain, D
xmailserver.org
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com
Date: 07/04/05 18:18
> Exactly, I agree with everything.
>
> Davide, if you want, send me a debug version of Xmail and I will put it in
>
xmailserver.org
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com
Date: 07/04/05 18:18
> Exactly, I agree with everything.
>
> Davide, if you want, send me a debug version of Xmail and I will put it in
>
Exactly, I agree with everything.
Davide, if you want, send me a debug version of Xmail and I will put it in
the production server.
Edinilson
-
ATINET-Professional Web Hosting
Tel Voz: (0xx11) 4412-0876
http://www.atinet.com.br
- Orig
- Original Message -
From: "Kroll, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 1:03 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com
I had been seeing the same reports since I upgraded to win2003 on several
customers systems and SPF extended rec
Mine contains exactly the same.
Edinilson
-
ATINET-Professional Web Hosting
Tel Voz: (0xx11) 4412-0876
http://www.atinet.com.br
- Original Message -
From: "Dario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 12:00 PM
Subje
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 t
With Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) as defined in RFC 2671, "Extension
Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)," DNS requestors can advertise UDP packet size
and transfer packets larger than 512 bytes. By default, some firewalls have
security features turned on that block UDP packets that are larger than
I had been seeing the same reports since I upgraded to win2003 on several
customers systems and SPF extended records became more commonplace. This
solved things for me.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;828263
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html
According to RFC 2821, "Add
