Right, so here's the situation:
- I changed that entry in the postfix settings to stacktrace.mixxx.org  
and set up a A record for that subdomain.
- We use EveryDNS for the DNS, so I can't do SPF (as far as I can see)
- The google mail entries are for Google Apps, which hosts @mixxx.org  
mail accounts.

What do I need to do? Is it fixed yet? I have no idea what's going on.

Thanks,
Albert

On 24-Feb-08, at 12:18 AM, Tom Jennings wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Ben Wheeler wrote:
>
>> No it's not saying that. It's saying "your server didn't say HELO
>> with its fully qualified domain name". No more, no less.
>
> You're right -- I meant, @mixxx.org in from (not that it matters
> at that smtp step). This was a distraction.
>
>
>
>>> My server is not logging alleged HELO names, so I can't
>>> tell you what it says it's name is, but likely it's
>>> saying "208-78-101-139.slicehost.net".
>>
>> In this case I'm afraid your guess has led you up a blind alley :)
>
> Duh, I was too lazy to RTFM to see that 'stacktrace' was actually
> the reported helo name...
>
>
>>> 208.78.101.139 which maps to
>>> 208-78-101-139.slicehost.net which maps to
>>> 208.78.101.139 so that's clean.
>>
>> Exactly. So there's no reason why the connection would be refused on
>> that basis.
>
> Wull yeah, but by tcpd, it wouldn't have got that far and would
> not have been in mail.log.
>
>
>>> You have an A record that says mixxx.org is 208.78.101.139,
>>> but an in-addr lookup of 208.78.101.139 does NOT return
>>> "mixxx.org". Add a resource record to zone file mixxx.org
>>> that does
>>>
>>> 139.101.78.208.in-addr.arpa         IN PTR  mixxx.org.
>>
>> That will do nothing in the zone file for mixxx.org.
>> to be in the zone file for 101.78.208.in-addr.arpa. (and you lose
>> 5 points for forgetting the trailing dot on the LHS.) And it's not
>> the problem here anyway.
>
> Aargh, my bad. Yes, I know quite well they are utterly different
> zones (mixxx, inaddr), I mis-wrote. I wasn't even in a hurry!
>
> The LH dot -- eh -- that was schematic response; I could have
> no idea what the scope of the in-addr zone that would contain
> that would be; likely it's simply '139. in ptr mixxx.org.' but
> that's not illustrative here.  Yeah, it was dumb to state it
> was in mixxx.org!
>
>
>> In fact, it's generally Not A Problem
>> if a lookup chain [hostname]-A->[addr]-PTR->[hostname] results in
>> different hostnames. This is entirely normal. The situation that
>> matters is if an [addr]-PTR->[hostname]-A->[addr] does not return the
>> same IP address.
>
> You are correct that the order of checks at tcpd wrapper time
> is addr/ptr/addr, but generally speaking, the list of names
> and numbers must be congruent (a member in each list). That's
> all I meant.
>
>
>
>
>>> Last, I strongly suggest that you comply with the irritating
>>> and kludgey SPF crap
>>
>> This doesn't really have anything to do with the problem at hand.
>> The jury's still out on whether SPF has any point, I certainly
>
> SPF is likely crap and used by few; but the cost is a TXT
> record. And many large sites DO use it.
>
>
>
>> So in short, the problem is a misconfigured MTA at the sending end.
>> Not the DNS. :)
>
> Yes, you are correct. My bad. The MTA needs to simply utter a
> valid name for HELO and likely the problem will be solved.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Mixxx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Mixxx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mixxx-devel

Reply via email to