--Boundary-02=_F2z6+adM4G/S6no Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline
On Friday 13 June 2003 07:35 pm, will hill wrote: > Good. Did you try to do it before changing postfix? I was surprised wh= en > balsa did not send directly as I expected and I'm not sure why it acted > this way. My email client still uses the localhost, but the local host > uses Cox. This might be a Balsa thing. Yep. The problem is on your end. Cox isn't doing anything weird. SMTP is a= =20 standard. =20 I have my problems with this decision but they are not technical issues. > Hmmm, I'll have to look harder at my headers, but I suspect the sending > machine will mark it's address as 192.168.x.x, which would be no > authentication at all. What are they matching? The phone tech thought t= he > correct user name was important. The phone tech is clueless. Look at your full headers. the answers are in= =20 they. I assure you that 192.168.x.x is not how the mail serves=20 "authenticate". Cox's mail server knows that your mail is coming from one = of=20 their cable modem cusotmer IPs. If you really want to set up your mail=20 server correctly, you should make the mail server's hostname the same as th= e=20 reverse lookup on your Cox IP. And that's regardless of whether or not you= =20 have to use cox's smtp server as a relayhost. =2D-=20 Scott Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all." gpg key fingerprint=3D7125 0BD3 8EC4 08D7 321D CEE9 F024 7DA6 0BC7 94E5 --Boundary-02=_F2z6+adM4G/S6no Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+6z2F8CR9pgvHlOURAlXxAJ9cDVsaC+yczYm6BuT4SPWDkf6xVwCeI7Gf 53KNOhlYRxPFSToNilkGL1E= =54PZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_F2z6+adM4G/S6no--
