On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 23:16 -0400, C F wrote:
On 6/10/05, Dave Cotton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote:
according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail
server,
so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate.
Really? Which
it is NOT required that reverse DNS is setup. get your facts straight.
On 6/10/05, Neal Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2005 3:16 AM, Andrew Kohlsmith
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote:
Received: from source
Sorry.
On 6/12/05, Dave Cotton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 23:16 -0400, C F wrote:
On 6/10/05, Dave Cotton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote:
according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail
server,
so
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Musone
Sent: Monday, 13 June 2005 5:40 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
it is NOT required
to not being registered in the DNS at all.
Please do not top post.
should != must - it is not illegal.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Musone
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
should != must - it is not illegal.
True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same
rules. If we all play by the same rules things on the internet tend to
work as expected. I like things to work as expected, don't you?
The reason most people (myself included) block mail
, 11 June 2005 9:57 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
should != must - it is not illegal.
True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same
rules. If we all play by the same rules things
On Saturday 11 June 2005 09:56, Tracy Phillips wrote:
True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same
rules. If we all play by the same rules things on the internet tend to
work as expected. I like things to work as expected, don't you?
That is *precisely* why the RFC is
I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs.
--Tracy
On 6/11/05, Andrew Kohlsmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 11 June 2005 09:56, Tracy Phillips wrote:
True. However, RFC's are in place to make sure we all play by the same
rules. If we all play by the same rules
On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote:
That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded should -- it is optional. If
the RFC said must then it is required. RFCs are worded very carefully
as a general rule.
I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs.
I'm not
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Andrew Kohlsmith
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:58 AM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote
I think you're looking for RFC 2119
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Kohlsmith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not making this up, RFCs use
must and
should very carefully. The latter is a guideline, and the
former
On Saturday 11 Jun 2005 14:56, Tracy Phillips wrote:
[...]
I wonder if there is an RFC from top posting? I doubt it... seems the
rest of the world can get along fine reading top posts...
rfc1855 details the netiquette guidelines.
From paragraph 3.1.1
If you are sending a reply to a message
Hello All ,
RFC = Request For Comments .
STD = Standards Track Document(s) .
Hth , JimL
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote:
That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded should -- it is
On 6/10/05, Dave Cotton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote:
according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server,
so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate.
Really? Which one? required? Can you please include a link to this
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list wrote:
according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups on ur mail server,
so blocking based on this is perfectly legitimate.
My ISP has the option of reverse lookups, I still get blocked by some
other ISPs :(
--
Dave Cotton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dave Cotton
Sent: Friday, 10 June 2005 5:29 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:00 -0400, list
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote:
Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com
([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT
Your MTA claimed it was called SOURCE but rDNS tells the recipient MX
that it is called: mail.linuxautrement.com
I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Andrew Kohlsmith
Sent: Friday, 10 June 2005 8:16 PM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith - Seriously OT
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan
On Friday 10 June 2005 07:34, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote:
Your server your rules, however in this day of increasing trojan SMTP
engined boxes, you should expect to get les and less deliverability.
I fail to see how a reverse pointer that == forward record means a more
reliable message. How many
On Friday, June 10, 2005 3:16 AM, Andrew Kohlsmith
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 10 June 2005 04:08, Terry H. Gilsenan wrote:
Received: from source ([81.56.129.44]) by exprod5mx8.postini.com
([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:29:16 PDT
Your MTA claimed it was
]
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Matt wrote:
I apologize for sending this to the list.
Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending
you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you
on this is perfectly legitimate. -jon - Original Message -
From: Sean Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: KeithMatt wrote: I apologize for sending this to the list. Keith from
stered in the DNS at
all."
- Original Message -
From:
Mark Musone
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List -
Non-Commercial Discussion
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN:
Keith
exactly what RFC is this???rfc2821 specifical
Matt wrote:
I apologize for sending this to the list.
Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending
you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want
to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is
going to block almost
: Thursday, 9 June 2005 2:29 PM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Matt wrote:
I apologize for sending this to the list.
Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending
you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may
: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
Matt wrote:
I apologize for sending this to the list.
Keith from Hazleton... your mail server is rejecting mail I'm sending
you from my mail servers, as well as from gmail... you may really want
to consider using a different blacklist.. the on you are using now is
going
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of list
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 4:01 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith
according to RFC's your required to have reverse lookups
28 matches
Mail list logo
