Ok, problem solved. They are not using VRFY, only the error messages were
suggesting that they are using. And they have been doubly confusing since
the error message was:
Vrfy failed on all MXes.
The problem was that I put only an A record for the zone and no MX
records. The mailcheck went on correctly, since the zone name had
an MTA on it, however there were no MXes and the check failed. Naturally
they did not state in the zone expectations that MX record should be
present, only that mail should be deliverable to postmaster@zone.
Regards,
Robert Varga
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
>
> >
> > What's wrong with 252? It's also a positive query. Please test it
> > yourself:
> > telnet localhost 25
> > ...
> > VRFY postmaster
> > 252 send some mail, i'll try my best
> > QUIT
>
> The problem is that the zone check gave back an error to me and I don't
> maintain the zone check, therefore I cannot make them register the zone
> this way.
>
> >
> > > since the domain
> > > registration policy in our country states that the domains to be
> > > registered must pass a verification script and the script checks for
> > > the existence of the postmaster user on all MX-es.
> >
> > How do they test existence? 252 is "user exists" (or "maybe"),
> > according to RFC.
> >
>
> I don't know how they test, the only thing I know is that qmail is setup
> to receive the mails for the domain, the test is with VRFY, and the test
> gives back an error. Sendmail returned 250
> <postmaster@machine's_real_name> for the query and it worked that way, so
> the only thing I think to be checked is the status code.
>
> And correct me if I am mistaken, but the only thing which should be
> checked is the status code anyway.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Varga
>
>
