On 4/11/20 4:13 PM, antlists wrote:
Which was also a pain in the neck because it was single-threaded - if
the ISP tried to send an incoming email at the same time the gateway
tried to send, the gateway hung.
Ew. I can't say as I'm surprised about that, given the nature of SMTP
servers in
On 11/04/2020 21:33, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 4/11/20 2:08 PM, antlists wrote:
Okay, it was a long time ago, and it was MS-Mail (Exchange's
predecessor, for those who can remember back that far), but I had an
argument with my boss. He was well annoyed with our ISP for complying
with RFC's
On 4/11/20 4:41 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/11/20 2:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Exchange used to do all manner of stupid things, but now that Microsoft
>> is running it themselves and making money from O365, they seem to have
>> figured out how to make it send mail correctly.
>
> I've
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 02:41:35PM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/11/20 2:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > Nowadays they prefer to cripple Outlook with non-Exchange protocols, so
> > that our users complain about not having shared calendars when we've had
> > CalDAV integrated with IMAP for
On 4/11/20 2:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Exchange used to do all manner of stupid things, but now that Microsoft
is running it themselves and making money from O365, they seem to have
figured out how to make it send mail correctly.
I've found that Exchange / IIS SMTP is fairly standards
On 4/11/20 2:08 PM, antlists wrote:
Okay, it was a long time ago, and it was MS-Mail (Exchange's
predecessor, for those who can remember back that far), but I had an
argument with my boss. He was well annoyed with our ISP for complying
with RFC's because they switched to ESMTP and MS-Mail
On 4/11/20 4:08 PM, antlists wrote:
>
> Okay, it was a long time ago, and it was MS-Mail (Exchange's
> predecessor, for those who can remember back that far), but I had an
> argument with my boss. He was well annoyed with our ISP for complying
> with RFC's because they switched to ESMTP and
On 06/04/2020 14:08, Ashley Dixon wrote:
After my thankfully-brief experience with the likes of Microsoft and their
Exchange program, I always question how much impact the content of an R.F.C.
actually has on an implementation.
:-)
Okay, it was a long time ago, and it was MS-Mail (Exchange's
On 07/04/2020 11:53, Ashley Dixon wrote:
Grant's mail server, I assume, is configured with the highest security in mind,
so I can see how a mail server with a dynamic I.P.\ could cause issues in some
contexts. I just wish my I.S.P.\ offered_any_ sort of static I.P.\ package, but
given that I
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 11:53:16 +0100, Ashley Dixon wrote:
> given that I live in remote area in the north of England, I.S.P.s
> aren't exactly plentiful.
Zen Internet are a premium ISP and give static IPs - and they are in the
north of England. I'm told that Plusnet will also give you a static IP
On 4/7/20 4:53 AM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
Grant's mail server, I assume, is configured with the highest security
in mind, so I can see how a mail server with a dynamic I.P. could
cause issues in some contexts.
I don't do any checking to see if the IP is from a dynamic net block or
not. Some
On 4/6/20 10:49 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I am afraid most (if not all) ISPs will reject emails if the reverse
DNS does not match.
My experience has been that there needs to be something for both the
forward and reverse DNS. Hopefully they match each other and — and what
I call — round
On 4/7/20 2:54 PM, Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
>
>> DKIM fails on many mailing lists. This list, for example, modifies your
>> subject to add "[gentoo user]" but leaves the DKIM signature intact. If
>> the sender has a p=reject DMARC policy, that can make his messages
>> "disappear" for recipients who
"Michael Orlitzky" , 07.04.2020, 20:34:
> Blaming lists.gentoo.org (or any other MTA) for not retrying after a 4xx
> without evidence is seeing hoof prints and thinking zebras. Ockham's
> razor: you fucked up.
I'm watching my exim logs right now and can confirm that the
gentoo mailing list
"Michael" , 07.04.2020, 19:10:
> This thread has been covered in depth for a while now, but I noticed something
> noteworthy.
> On Monday, 6 April 2020 19:13:06 BST Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
>>
>> And here's an example for J. Roeleveld's observed missed original
>> messages:
>>
>> A few days ago
On 4/7/20 1:10 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> Perhaps the order in which recipients servers parse the headers cause the
> DKIM
> check to fail?
>
DKIM fails on many mailing lists. This list, for example, modifies your
subject to add "[gentoo user]" but leaves the DKIM signature intact. If
the sender
This thread has been covered in depth for a while now, but I noticed something
noteworthy.
On Monday, 6 April 2020 19:13:06 BST Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
> "Michael Orlitzky" , 06.04.2020, 19:35:
> > On 4/6/20 1:32 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> The messages were missing due to the MX being
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 06:49:08AM +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I am afraid most (if not all) ISPs will reject emails if the reverse DNS does
> not match. Using a dynamic range is another "spam" indicator and will also
> get your emails blocked by (nearly) all ISPs.
>
> I would suggest putting
On Monday, April 6, 2020 11:17:58 PM CEST Ashley Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:34:02AM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > On 4/6/20 6:35 AM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
> > > Hello,
> >
> > Hi,
>
> Hello,
>
> [O.T.] Unfortunately, Grant, I cannot reply to your direct e-mail. My best
> guess is
On Monday, April 6, 2020 7:35:40 PM CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 4/6/20 1:32 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > The messages were missing due to the MX being unavailable for a short
> > period. Retries were not attempted as I would have received them.
> >
> > The spam filter is configured with
On 4/6/20 3:17 PM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
[O.T.] Unfortunately, Grant, I cannot reply to your direct e-mail. My
best guess is that you have a protection method in place in the
event that the reverse D.N.S.\ does not match the forward ?
You're close. I do require reverse DNS. I
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:34:02AM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/6/20 6:35 AM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> Hi,
Hello,
[O.T.] Unfortunately, Grant, I cannot reply to your direct e-mail. My best guess
is that you have a protection method in place in the event that the reverse
D.N.S.\
On 4/6/20 3:59 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>· It's not five seconds a year.
> · It's more likely an hour or two a year, possibly aggregated.
>· You can't control the retry time frame on the sending side.
>· You can control the retry / forward time on secondary MX(s).
>· Messages
On 4/6/20 11:55 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Ok, you're right.
;-)
My suggestion to create multiple records was in response to the claim
that there are MTAs that will try a backup MX, but won't retry the
primary MX, which is false to begin with. Trying to argue against an
untrue premise
"Michael Orlitzky" , 06.04.2020, 19:35:
> On 4/6/20 1:32 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>
>> The messages were missing due to the MX being unavailable for a short
>> period. Retries were not attempted as I would have received them.
>>
>> The spam filter is configured with certain mailing lists
On 4/6/20 1:44 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/6/20 11:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Why don't you say which MTA it is that both (a) combines MX records with
>> different priorities, and (b) doesn't retry messages to the primary MX?
>
> You seem to have conflated the meaning of my message.
>
On 4/6/20 11:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Why don't you say which MTA it is that both (a) combines MX records with
different priorities, and (b) doesn't retry messages to the primary MX?
You seem to have conflated the meaning of my message.
I only stated that I've seen multiple MTAs to (a)
On 4/6/20 1:32 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> The messages were missing due to the MX being unavailable for a short period.
> Retries were not attempted as I would have received them.
>
> The spam filter is configured with certain mailing lists whitelisted.
>
Here is proof that the Gentoo list
On 4/6/20 6:35 AM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
After many hours of confusing mixtures of pain and pleasure, I have
a secure and well-behaved e-mail server which encompasses all the
features I originally desired.
Full STOP!
I hoist my drink to you and tell the bar keep that your next
On 6 April 2020 19:25:13 CEST, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>On 4/6/20 1:19 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>
>> I have missed emails coming from mailing lists, this one for example,
>due to no retries.
>> The proof for that is that I got replies to emails I never received.
>>
>
>That doesn't prove that
On 4/6/20 1:24 PM, Robert Bridge wrote:
>
> But that is just an anecdote.
>
It's very easy to collect evidence of this from the mail logs if you are
correct.
On 4/6/20 1:19 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> I have missed emails coming from mailing lists, this one for example, due to
> no retries.
> The proof for that is that I got replies to emails I never received.
>
That doesn't prove that the server never retried, it proves that you
didn't receive one
On 6 Apr 2020, at 18:20, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> On 6 April 2020 19:14:35 CEST, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> On 4/6/20 1:02 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> On 4/6/20 10:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Well, I can't refute an anecdote without more information, but if
you're worried about
On 6 April 2020 19:14:35 CEST, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>On 4/6/20 1:02 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> On 4/6/20 10:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> Well, I can't refute an anecdote without more information, but if
>>> you're worried about this you can create the same MX record twice so
>
>>> that
On 4/6/20 1:02 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/6/20 10:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Well, I can't refute an anecdote without more information, but if
>> you're worried about this you can create the same MX record twice so
>> that the "backup" is the primary.
>
> That's not going to work as
On 4/6/20 10:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Well, I can't refute an anecdote without more information, but if
you're worried about this you can create the same MX record twice so
that the "backup" is the primary.
That's not going to work as well as you had hoped.
I've run into many MTAs that
On 4/6/20 10:19 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
I find that, with a backup MX, I don't seem to loose emails.
Having multiple email servers of your own, primary, secondary, tertiary,
etc, makes it much more likely that the email will move from the sending
systems control to your control. I think
On 4/6/20 12:19 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> I find that, with a backup MX, I don't seem to loose emails.
> I have, however, found evidence of mailservers belonging to big ISPs not
> retrying emails if there is no response from the singular MX.
>
Well, I can't refute an anecdote without more
On 6 April 2020 18:02:22 CEST, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>On 4/6/20 11:51 AM, Robert Bridge wrote:
>>
>> It is still commonly considered good practice to have a secondary MX
>server.
>
>[citation needed]
>
>
>> Why trust another party to correctly handle your email when your main
>system is
On 4/6/20 11:51 AM, Robert Bridge wrote:
>
> It is still commonly considered good practice to have a secondary MX server.
[citation needed]
> Why trust another party to correctly handle your email when your main system
> is offline?
You're still trusting the sender to do the right thing with
On 6 Apr 2020, at 16:35, Ashley Dixon wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:24:03PM +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> You'd need to install a SMTP server on the backup system and configure it to
>> relay emails to your primary mailserver.
>>
>> In the DNS you can configure priorities in the MX
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:24:03PM +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> You'd need to install a SMTP server on the backup system and configure it to
> relay emails to your primary mailserver.
>
> In the DNS you can configure priorities in the MX entries.
Hi, cheers for your response, however as Michael
On 6 April 2020 14:35:04 CEST, Ashley Dixon wrote:
>Hello,
>
>After many hours of confusing mixtures of pain and pleasure, I have a
>secure and
>well-behaved e-mail server which encompasses all the features I
>originally
>desired. However, in the event that I need to reboot the server
>(perhaps a
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:15:27AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> All real MTAs follow the specification. A few email service providers
> (think SendGrid, MailChimp, etc.) allow their users to configure how
> many retries will be made, and every once in a while you have users who
> set it to
On 4/6/20 9:08 AM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:41:20AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> There's no need, the SMTP specification says that senders must retry
>> every message, and should continue retrying for at least 4 or 5 days:
>>
>>
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:41:20AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> There's no need, the SMTP specification says that senders must retry
> every message, and should continue retrying for at least 4 or 5 days:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.4
That's a relief, cheers.
On 4/6/20 8:35 AM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
>
> What do you think; is this at all possible ? Has anyone here done anything
> like
> this before ?
>
There's no need, the SMTP specification says that senders must retry
every message, and should continue retrying for at least 4 or 5 days:
Hello,
After many hours of confusing mixtures of pain and pleasure, I have a secure and
well-behaved e-mail server which encompasses all the features I originally
desired. However, in the event that I need to reboot the server (perhaps a
kernel update was added to Portage), I would like to have a
48 matches
Mail list logo
