Hey Paul,
-- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A
URL in
the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For
resolution do
not contact Cox
On Nov 21, 2007 5:46 PM, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given what Sean wrote goes to the core of how mail is routed, you'd
pretty much need to overhaul how MX records work to get around this one,
or perhaps go back to try to resurrect something like a DNS MB record,
but that presumes
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Most mailservers do allow you to exempt specific addresses from filtering.
On the LHS of the @ of a remote address? I think that was Sean's point.
Eliot
Given what Sean wrote goes to the core of how mail is routed, you'd
pretty much need to overhaul how MX records work to get around this one,
or perhaps go back to try to resurrect something like a DNS MB record,
but that presumes that the problem can't easily be solved in other
ways. Sean
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 06:51:42AM +, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Sure, it's an unfortunate limitation, but I hardly think it's
an issue to hand-wave about and say oh, well.
Suggestions?
There are numerous techniques available for addressing this problem.
Which one(s) to use depends on the
To be clear, should one be white listing *all* the addresses suggested in
RFC 2142?
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe
Greco
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:30 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:51 AM, Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An unfortunate limitation of the SMTP protocol is it initially only
looks at the right-hand side of an address when connecting to a
server to send e-mail, and not the left-hand side. This means
Sure, it's an unfortunate
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in the
content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do not
contact Cox Communications, contact
You're missing the point.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is going to go to whatever MX example.com returns.
Sean's point was that you can't cause, e.g., [EMAIL PROTECTED] alone to
go to a server other than the same set of servers listed for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If that ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) overloads those
On Nov 22, 2007 3:33 AM, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) overloads those servers, even if they're
valiantly trying to pass the connection off to another machine, then
you have to use some other method like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and hope the
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Barry Shein wrote:
| Sean's point was that you can't cause, e.g., [EMAIL PROTECTED] alone to
| go to a server other than the same set of servers listed for
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes of course - but only a fundamental problem where the MX servers are
hopelessly overloaded.
Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
P.S. It's an interesting thought. The only approach to a solution I
could imagine is that the whole address would have to be passed in the
MX query.
Once upon a time (1987) there was this experimental facility called MB
(mailbox) records which did
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
P.S. It's an interesting thought. The only approach to a solution I
could imagine is that the whole address would have to be passed in the
MX query.
Once upon a time (1987) there was this experimental facility called MB
13 matches
Mail list logo
