Last week, I sent a terribly informative and highly salient message to the
list. And it never showed up. (Which is too bad, because the honorable
David Savimbi, nephew of Jonas tells me his offer has since expired.)
This week qmail returned it to me, something at aol did not like an IP
Name address lookup. I am thinking this is a reverse DNS lookup, but I am
not sure.
A few minutes ago, I sent a copy of this post (I did this using a non
gell-man technique) to the list, and I can see it sitting in qmail's queue.
The reason it's there now, is the same as it was seven days ago:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 152.163.216.7 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 450 4.7.1 Access temporarily denied. IP name lookup failed
[192.25.138.230]
I've long posted to this list (as I am sure many of you regret), and my
mailserver has never had the reverse dns pointing to theashergroup. It
hasn't been a problem in the past. Is this a reverse dns check or something
else?
What's going on, and where? Is it with listserv, or with aol.com's
servers, or with mine?
Thanks,
Jerry
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at moe.theashergroup.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 152.163.216.7 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 450 4.7.1 Access temporarily denied. IP name lookup failed
[192.25.138.230]
I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 10798 invoked by uid 99); 19 Aug 2003 17:00:37 -0000
Received: from 68.3.55.171
(SquirrelMail authenticated user jerry)
by postoffice.theashergroup.com with HTTP;
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:00:37 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:00:37 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] is ns_conn peeraddr spoofable?
From: "Jerry Asher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "AOLserver Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
> In fact there are four address-filtering rules your router should use:
> - Drop a packet from the WAN with a LAN source address
> - Drop a packet from the WAN without a LAN destination address
> - Drop a packet from the LAN without a LAN source address
> - Drop a packet from the LAN with a LAN destination address
>
In fact, a day or two ago, I sent an email to various authors of Blaster
articles saying that the DSL and Cable companies should do exactly this on
their routers (and others things they could do) for basic consumer
accounts. This would dramatically reduce many attacks and the reward for
hijacking a machine. It would also make attacks much more easily traced.
This wouldn't have stopped Blaster, but my basic thesis is that the
Cable/DSL providers have as much blame and arguably more so for providing
a shoddy product as Microsoft.
Jerry
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of
your email blank.
