On 14 Jun 2011, at 12:50, W B Hacker wrote:
Is that true? I've not experienced it, in several years.
It might not be obvious *why* one's server was rejected - and need not be an
LBL.
Right, but it might be obvious *whether* my mail has been rejected.
--
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster,
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 12:50, W B Hacker wrote:
Is that true? I've not experienced it, in several years.
It might not be obvious *why* one's server was rejected - and need not be an
LBL.
Right, but it might be obvious *whether* my mail has been rejected.
..there is
W B Hacker wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 12:50, W B Hacker wrote:
Is that true? I've not experienced it, in several years.
It might not be obvious *why* one's server was rejected - and need
not be an LBL.
Right, but it might be obvious *whether* my mail has been
On 15 Jun 2011, at 16:32, W B Hacker wrote:
Or time-out a sender_verify callout..
I have, very rarely, seen an issue where the callout target delayed a response
for longer than the original sender's smtp timeout. Not in the past few years,
though.
However, that would probably mean that a
On 14 Jun 2011, at 05:24, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-06-13 at 00:32 +, Michael Jimenez wrote:
So I've been looking at my mail server mainlog for the past couple of days
watching mail come in and out, I've noticed that this Microsoft address
keeps failing to verify:
You're using
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 05:24, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-06-13 at 00:32 +, Michael Jimenez wrote:
So I've been looking at my mail server mainlog for the past
couple of days watching mail come in and out, I've noticed that
this Microsoft address keeps failing to verify:
On 6/14/2011 3:21 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 05:24, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-06-13 at 00:32 +, Michael Jimenez wrote:
So I've been looking at my mail server mainlog for the past couple of days
watching mail come in and out, I've noticed that this Microsoft address
- Original Message -
From: Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk
To: exim-users@exim.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [exim] Sender verification failing sometimes
You're using sender *callout* verification to systems not under your
administrative control
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 00:24 -0400, Phil Pennock wrote:
You're using sender *callout* verification to systems not under your
administrative control.
Really? Not necessarily.
Using deny !verify = sender results in:
RCPT TO:gra...@graemef.net
550-Verification failed for
On 2011-06-14 at 20:58 +0100, Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 00:24 -0400, Phil Pennock wrote:
You're using sender *callout* verification to systems not under your
administrative control.
Really? Not necessarily.
Not necessarily, but highly likely given that the address which
On 15/06/11 01:40, Marc Perkel wrote:
It's one of those things that could be true depending on how you have
things configured. I use sender verification callouts myself without any
problems. but I use them after a lot of other tests to reduce the number
of callouts I have to do.
The real
Ted Cooper wrote:
*snip*
I've had two single domain machines obliterated by sender callouts and a
joe job. Being a small operator on the end of a multi-million (billion?)
email callout bomb is a case of throwing up your arms in surrender and
simply shutting down the server until the attack
On 6/14/2011 6:02 PM, Ted Cooper wrote:
On 15/06/11 01:40, Marc Perkel wrote:
It's one of those things that could be true depending on how you have
things configured. I use sender verification callouts myself without any
problems. but I use them after a lot of other tests to reduce the number
On 15/06/11 11:42, W B Hacker wrote:
'Obliterated'?
You must have one Helluva good backbone for things to degenerate to that
sad sate of affairs.
;-)
You'd be surprised how many logs you get from millions of connections
when you're only set for maybe a thousand a day, of which 50 are
On 6/14/2011 8:16 PM, Ted Cooper wrote:
Cutting a long story short, the /var drive ran out of room and services
started dying off because of it. The machine was running (no smoke
pouring out of it), but wasn't really doing anything but printing
messages to the console about how upset it was.
Ted Cooper wrote:
On 15/06/11 11:42, W B Hacker wrote:
'Obliterated'?
You must have one Helluva good backbone for things to degenerate to that
sad sate of affairs.
;-)
You'd be surprised how many logs you get from millions of connections
when you're only set for maybe a thousand a day, of
Hi, Marc
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:28:18 -0700 in message number
4df834e2.7060...@perkel.com, received here on 15/06/2011 07:17:29, Marc
Perkel m...@perkel.com said:
Drifting even more off topic
You do know you can get a 2 terabyte drive for $75 these days. :)
Actually, when it comes to
So I've been looking at my mail server mainlog for the past couple of days
watching mail come in and out, I've noticed that this Microsoft address keeps
failing to verify:
2011-06-12 23:17:08 H=servera02.blusmtp.msn.com (servera02.blusmtpg.msn.com)
[65.55.238.141] sender verify fail for
On 2011-06-13 at 00:32 +, Michael Jimenez wrote:
So I've been looking at my mail server mainlog for the past couple of days
watching mail come in and out, I've noticed that this Microsoft address keeps
failing to verify:
You're using sender *callout* verification to systems not under
19 matches
Mail list logo
