Mike needed more coffee today.. Thank you all for your help!
<crawls back into cave> -Mike On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM, W B Hacker <[email protected]> wrote: > Todd Lyons wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Mike Lyon<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Well, I have the forward and reverse IPs matching. Don't have any MX >>> records for that specific domain set-up because I don't have any inbound >>> mail setup for that domain (nor do I want it). >>> >> >> Set up an MX record that indicates that then. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-delany-nullmx-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delany-nullmx-00> >> It may only be draft, but I've seen it in the past in live production. >> >> It's an IP block that was allocated to us from ATT on a business >>> circuit. I >>> checked the IP addresses on MX toolbox and they come up clean >>> >> >> That's a good thing. >> >> Would they actually refuse the connection if there were no MX records for >>> that domain? >>> >> >> If they do, then they break fallback to A records as defined in the RFC's. >> >> ...Todd >> > > Forensics taken offline. Testing completed. > > Not a Google issue, nor Exim, nor DNS... > > Stale FW rule on port 25 was penning Mike right in hizzown tcpip stack... > never left his own box. > > Nothing further to see here... > > ;-) > > > Bill > -- > 韓家標 > > -- > ## List details at > https://lists.exim.org/**mailman/listinfo/exim-users<https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users> > ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ > ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/ > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
