[xmail] AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: XMail growing memory image ...
Did you check mem usage now? Maybe this prob is also solved. --Harald -Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Pascal de R. Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2004 08:38 An: Davide Libenzi Betreff: [xmail] Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: XMail growing memory image ... =20 =20 =20 mardi 13 janvier 2004 at 08:30:34, you said : =20 Davide On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Pascal de R. wrote: =20 XMail has running all night without crash =20 Davide I lost the track. So, now you have RH9 + -static +=20 Davide LD_ASSUME_KERNEL, don't you? =20 No I have : =20 Compil on RH9 without -static but with LD_ASSUME_KERNEL =20 =20 Davide; do you the coredump file of previous crash or can=20 i destroy=20 it ? =20 Davide You can nuke it. =20 =20 =20 =20 Davide - Davide =20 =20 Davide - Davide To unsubscribe from this list: send the line=20 unsubscribe xmail=20 Davide in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general=20 Davide help: send the line help in the body of a message to=20 Davide [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Best regards, Pascal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe=20 xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a=20 message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 - 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]
[xmail] Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: XMail growing memory image ...
Memory is ok :-) Running normally around 66 Mo and without crash till yesterday...we have to wait more to be sure about crash! mardi 13 janvier 2004 at 08:48:16, you said : Harald Did you check mem usage now? Maybe this prob is also solved. Harald --Harald -Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Pascal de R. Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2004 08:38 An: Davide Libenzi Betreff: [xmail] Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: XMail growing memory image ... =20 =20 =20 mardi 13 janvier 2004 at 08:30:34, you said : =20 Davide On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Pascal de R. wrote: =20 XMail has running all night without crash =20 Davide I lost the track. So, now you have RH9 + -static +=20 Davide LD_ASSUME_KERNEL, don't you? =20 No I have : =20 Compil on RH9 without -static but with LD_ASSUME_KERNEL =20 =20 Davide; do you the coredump file of previous crash or can=20 i destroy=20 it ? =20 Davide You can nuke it. =20 =20 =20 =20 Davide - Davide =20 =20 Davide - Davide To unsubscribe from this list: send the line=20 unsubscribe xmail=20 Davide in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general=20 Davide help: send the line help in the body of a message to=20 Davide [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Best regards, Pascal, [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe=20 xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a=20 message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 Harald - Harald To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in Harald the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harald For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to Harald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Pascal, [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]
[xmail] Re: relaying issue
At 10:38 1/13/2004, Jeffrey Laramie wrote: That's kinda interesting. You have multiple A records pointing to 66.219.172.36. We're getting a little OT here but why do you use A records instead of CNAMEs? I know there was some debate about this years ago and at that time the conventional wisdom was that CNAMEs were better. I don't know what the 'preferred ' configuration is these days. Because RFC2822 specifies that A records for mail servers should not be CNAMEs...:) - 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]
[xmail] Re: relaying issue
At 10:38 1/13/2004, Jeffrey Laramie wrote: Right, but getting back to Dale's original concern, his virtual domains won't fail the remote server's RDNS check if the DNS for his SMTP server is configured correctly. And he shouldn't be afraid to use RDNS to check the validity of a remote server. Even a couple of years ago spoofing was relatively rare and a mail server that failed RDNS was not a big deal. Today about half of the spam I see is rejected by RDNS before my users see it. IMHO any SMTP server that fails RDNS is broken and should be fixed. True. However, most RDNS checks today are to determine that a mail server (ie. a connecting IP address) *has* a PTR record, not to match the PTR record with the HELO or MAIL FROM domain. However, with that said, I do match the PTR record against a number of known spam source DNS names, and reject if I find it in that list... - 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]
[xmail] Re: relaying issue
Tracy wrote: At 10:38 1/13/2004, Jeffrey Laramie wrote: That's kinda interesting. You have multiple A records pointing to 66.219.172.36. We're getting a little OT here but why do you use A records instead of CNAMEs? I know there was some debate about this years ago and at that time the conventional wisdom was that CNAMEs were better. I don't know what the 'preferred ' configuration is these days. Because RFC2822 specifies that A records for mail servers should not be CNAMEs...:) Good reason! - 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]
[xmail] Re: relaying issue
Tracy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because RFC2822 specifies that A records for mail servers should not be CNAMEs...:) You mean, rcf 2821. Here is an extract: Once an SMTP client lexically identifies a domain to which mail will be delivered for processing (as described in sections 3.6 and 3.7), a DNS lookup MUST be performed to resolve the domain name [22]. [.] The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with the name. If a CNAME record is found instead, the resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name. If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. If one or more MX RRs are found for a given name, SMTP systems MUST NOT utilize any A RRs associated with that name unless they are located using the MX RRs; the implicit MX rule above applies only if there are no MX records present. If MX records are present, but none of them are usable, this situation MUST be reported as an error. regards, chabral - 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]
[xmail] Re: relaying issue
chabral wrote: Jeffrey Laramie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you by any chance have a link to this document? This is something I really need to keep up on. Here you can find all rfcs: http://www.rfc-index.com/ Great, thanks. You've provided a valuable resource *and* cured my insomnia with a single link ;-) Jeff - 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]
[xmail] Re: POP3?
At 20:56 1/13/2004, Dustin C. Hatch wrote: by relay, do you mean open their client, set mail.mydomain.com as smtp and send messages? Relaying mail means that a host can send mail through your server without restriction. If the host is a local host (ie. under your control), this may be a good thing - as it means they can send mail to anyone they choose. If the host is not a local host (ie. is not under your control), this is likely a bad thing - it's one of the means that spammers use to send out their email. However, it is not necessary for local users' IP addresses to be listed in smtprelay.tab, as their mail clients can usually provide authentication to the server (ie. they set their mailbox user name and password in their mail clients, and tell it to authenticate when sending mail as well as when receiving mail). The only time it's really necessary to list addresses in smtprelay.tab is for local host machines which are not capable of authenticating when sending mail - the most common example is a web server that has to generate emails (such as order confirmations). Web pages typically aren't set up to authenticate to your mail server when sending their emails. - 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]
