On 3 Nov 2021, at 9:31, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dňa 3. 11. o 4:30 Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users napísal(a):
>> LOG: lowest numbered MX record points to local host: senderdomain.com (while
>> verifying from host rs224.mailgun.us
>> [209.61.151.224])
>
> have you tried to play w
Hi,
Dňa 3. 11. o 4:30 Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users napísal(a):
> LOG: lowest numbered MX record points to local host: senderdomain.com (while
> verifying from host rs224.mailgun.us
> [209.61.151.224])
have you tried to play with "self", the generic router option?
--
Slavko
--
## List d
On 2 Nov 2021, at 22:56, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 02/11/2021 20:29, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users wrote:
>> ::1 in "0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 : 192.168.0.0/16 : 10.0.0.0/8 : 172.16.0.0/12
>> : [::1/128]"? no (malformed IPv4 address or address mask)
>
> That test took an error.
>
>
On 02/11/2021 20:29, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users wrote:
::1 in "0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 : 192.168.0.0/16 : 10.0.0.0/8 : 172.16.0.0/12 :
[::1/128]"? no (malformed IPv4 address or address mask)
That test took an error.
[::1/128] is not a valid address-list element.
You either need 1 (i
On 2 Nov 2021, at 20:39, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:12:49PM +0100, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users
> wrote:
>> What setting do I have to make in the dnslookup-router that a “MX 0
>> localhost.” fails and not defers?
>
> Try ignore_target_host
Hi.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:12:49PM +0100, Niels Kobschätzki via Exim-users
wrote:
> What setting do I have to make in the dnslookup-router that a “MX 0
> localhost.” fails and not defers?
Try ignore_target_hosts option.
--
Eugene Berdnikov
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.or
Hi,
I have a sender who sends from a domain with a null MX set to localhost. Exim
returns a 451 loca temporary failure because the dnslookup router defers the
mail (lowest mx points at localhost).
I would expect some form of 500-type error returning.
When I send a mail to that domain it also g
On 06/12/17 12:26, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
On 06/12/17 12:09, Graeme Fowler via Exim-users wrote:
On 6 Dec 2017, at 11:56, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users
wrote:
domains = +local_domains
Are you sure? I would have thought you were verifying non-local
domains at this point
On 06/12/17 12:09, Graeme Fowler via Exim-users wrote:
On 6 Dec 2017, at 11:56, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users
wrote:
domains = +local_domains
Are you sure? I would have thought you were verifying non-local domains at this
point…
Try ‘domains = !+local_domains’ (or '!domains = +local_
On 6 Dec 2017, at 11:56, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users
wrote:
>domains = +local_domains
Are you sure? I would have thought you were verifying non-local domains at this
point…
Try ‘domains = !+local_domains’ (or '!domains = +local_domains')
Graeme
--
## List details at https://lists.exim
I am trying to setup a special router which will verify sender's domain
(simple verification) for inbound emails (we receive direct, but send
through smart host).
acl_check_rcpt:
deny message = Sender cannot be verified
log_message = "Reject: sender cannot be verified"
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 08:50 +0200, James Isolder wrote:
> Instead of using the nomal sender verification i would like to test against
> all the sending headers and then output a line that will tell me which one
> failed. I would like to add the following to my Data phase for smtp. So
> that I can o
Instead of using the nomal sender verification i would like to test against
all the sending headers and then output a line that will tell me which one
failed. I would like to add the following to my Data phase for smtp. So
that I can output the log line. Would this be the way to do it. I do not
wan
On 23/02/12 13:01, Roman Gavrilov wrote:
> I was wandering if this is a problem on our side or its expedia?
> Can we do something about it besides disabling sender verification ( /
> Sender Verification Callouts are disabled)/?
Short answer: It's their end. They should not be sending out emails fr
Hello,
Today we run into some issue with one of our email accounts, for some
reason it won't receive emails from expedia (when you click email my
itinerary).
We checked the logs and saw the following entries in the log:
/2012-02-22 14:48:58 H=mx.expedia.com [216.251.112.210] sender verify
fail
--On 8 September 2010 17:36:13 +0800 Ho-Ki Au wrote:
> I'm trying to set up exim whose hostname is managed by a local dns server.
> Let's say our domain is abc.com and the exim server is running on
> mail.abc.com. When I tried to send mail using alpine on another host in
> the same domain, e.
On 2010-09-08 at 17:36 +0800, Ho-Ki Au wrote:
> I'm trying to set up exim whose hostname is managed by a local dns server.
> Let's say our domain is abc.com and the exim server is running on
> mail.abc.com. When I tried to send mail using alpine on another host in the
> same domain, e.g. client.a
I'm trying to set up exim whose hostname is managed by a local dns server.
Let's say our domain is abc.com and the exim server is running on
mail.abc.com. When I tried to send mail using alpine on another host in the
same domain, e.g. client.abc.com and specifying a sender address to be
h...@abc.
2009/7/20 Vasiliy Tolstov :
> Hello!
> I'm using exim (4.69) and want that is spf != pass, do sender verify.
> And if two condition is fail = deny.
> Is that possible?
Sure. Write a sub URL that looks a bit like this:
my_sub_url:
accept spf = pass
require verify = sender
Then invoke my_sub_url
Hello!
I'm using exim (4.69) and want that is spf != pass, do sender verify.
And if two condition is fail = deny.
Is that possible?
--
Vasiliy Tolstov
Selfip.Ru
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wi
Hi,
I have a working exim config that is used as our public smtp mail server.
But I also need to be able to mail alerts etc from scripts and programs on
our own servers.
So my problem is that from some of our servers when you try and send emails
(from command line or from programs such as na
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:21:11PM +1000, Brad Jenkins wrote:
> I can't figure out why exim is quering what appears to be the wrong
> mailservers during sender callouts for jpmorgan.com
>
> Here's the logs, it's querying 170.148.48.190, now i can't find where it
> pulled that from.
>
> 2008-0
I can't figure out why exim is quering what appears to be the wrong mailservers
during sender callouts for jpmorgan.com
Here's the logs, it's querying 170.148.48.190, now i can't find where it pulled
that from.
2008-08-04 18:12:13 H=sb4.jpmchase.com [170.148.48.190] sender verify fail for
<[
Renaud Allard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (So 08 Jun 2008 00:09:08 CEST):
>
> Exim uses the MXes for sender callouts, the only difference with a
> normal delivery is that it always use HELO for callouts, never EHLO.
And - if it's not changed meanwhile: It doesn't use the transports set
by a router (e.g.
Gordon Dickens wrote:
Hello,
I have a question about how exim does sender verify callouts.
Based on my testing, it appears that exim always uses the incoming host
(or incoming IP address) for doing callouts. That is, it appears that
exim always connects directly to the host that initiated
Hello,
I have a question about how exim does sender verify callouts.
Based on my testing, it appears that exim always uses the incoming host
(or incoming IP address) for doing callouts. That is, it appears that
exim always connects directly to the host that initiated the smtp
session for doi
On 19/12/2007, Yan Seiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:50:30PM +, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > On 19/12/2007, Daniel Aquino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In the default config file a line in the first ACL is:
> > >
> > > require verify= sender
> > >
> > > Does
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:50:30PM +, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 19/12/2007, Daniel Aquino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the default config file a line in the first ACL is:
> >
> > require verify= sender
> >
> > Does this require a reverse smtp connection to check if the sender is
>
On 19/12/2007, Daniel Aquino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the default config file a line in the first ACL is:
>
> require verify= sender
>
> Does this require a reverse smtp connection to check if the sender is
> a valid recipient on the relay?
No. As the docs indicate[1], it simply ru
In the default config file a line in the first ACL is:
require verify= sender
Does this require a reverse smtp connection to check if the sender is
a valid recipient on the relay?
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.ex
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 11:56:57PM +0200, Marco Wessel said:
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Jethro R Binks wrote:
> >
> > It has often been observed that people's position on this matter
> > changes once it is their own domain which gets forged as a sender in a
> > million-spam run, and they have t
On 06/07/2007 11:33, Jethro R Binks wrote:
[...]
> It has often been observed that people's position on this matter
> changes once it is their own domain which gets forged as a sender in a
> million-spam run, and they have to deal with the callouts ...
It's probably still better than dealing wit
On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Jethro R Binks wrote:
>
> It has often been observed that people's position on this matter
> changes once it is their own domain which gets forged as a sender in a
> million-spam run, and they have to deal with the callouts ...
I can imagine this happening to those who
Jethro R Binks wrote:
> But the cost is borne by those sender domains, requiring resources to
> deal with your callout.
>
The cost is minimal compared to the benefit. I get a lot of customers
whose domains had been spoofed and when they move to my filtering
service which is verify friendly
Jethro R Binks napisał(a):
> I am somewhat near the fence on this issue, so I err on the side of
> caution and do not do callouts to arbitrary domains. I can see both
> points of view: I can see the value of callouts and the benefits to the
> would-be recipient, but I also see the damage that
I am somewhat near the fence on this issue, so I err on the side of
caution and do not do callouts to arbitrary domains. I can see both
points of view: I can see the value of callouts and the benefits to the
would-be recipient, but I also see the damage that can be done to the
sender domain wh
Graeme Fowler napisał(a):
> However, they can be extremely useful in cases such as hosting farms,
> dedicated server providers and colos where all the mail goes out through
> a smarthost - calling back to *your own network* to check whether or not
> a sender is valid is very useful indeed.
>
The
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 22:52 +0100, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> You don't need callouts full-stop. They are abusive behaviour and should not
> be used.
That's not *quite* true, Phil. Some people regard them as abusive if
they are done without any limitations whatsoever.
However, they can be ext
- Original Message -
From: "David Woodhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marcin Krol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [exim] Sender verify at extreme
> Yes, but only _after_ the 'require verify=sender&#x
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 21:40 +0200, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Why would this condition fail??? After all, I clearly defined accept
> condition:
Yes, but only _after_ the 'require verify=sender' which is causing the
failure. You don't need callouts to detect that this sender domain is
totally broken.
--
Hello everyone,
OK, so I designed myself this ACL for sender verify with exceptions
made for some broken domains that are held in
/etc/exim/wildcard_whitelist_domains file ( *.badly.broken.domain ):
begin acl
acl_nsvdom:
accept condition = ${lookup {${lc:$sender_address_domain}}
partial
"Thomas Hochstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Debbie D" schrieb:
>
>> Graeme, I added the condition you suggested below and sent a test fax and
>> it
>> was again rejected:
>
> You did reload the config after changing it?
>
I did the change inside cPanels exi
"Debbie D" schrieb:
> Graeme, I added the condition you suggested below and sent a test fax and it
> was again rejected:
You did reload the config after changing it?
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the
(sorry if this is a duplicate, I show it as being sent but never posted)
Graeme, I added the condition you suggested below and sent a test fax and it
was again rejected:
2007-04-30 14:27:17 H=(spserver2.kwcharlotte.local) [66.255.39.113] sender
verify fail for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: unrouteable ma
Graeme, I added the condition you suggested below and sent a test fax and it
was again rejected:
2007-04-30 14:27:17 H=(spserver2.kwcharlotte.local) [66.255.39.113] sender
verify fail for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: unrouteable mail domain "fax"
2007-04-30 14:27:17 H=(spserver2.kwcharlotte.local) [66.
"Graeme Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 17:12 -0400, Debbie Doerrlamm wrote:
>> Thanks that looks like it will work perfect, but what if it is not a
>> static IP??
>
> [replies to the list, please]
Sorry I thought I did..
thanks I will
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 17:12 -0400, Debbie Doerrlamm wrote:
> Thanks that looks like it will work perfect, but what if it is not a
> static IP??
[replies to the list, please]
Then you have other options:
1. Comment out the "hosts" line, but note that [EMAIL PROTECTED] from
anywhere will get acce
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 02:59 -0400, Debbie D wrote:
> One of my hosted clients is receiving efax's that does not come FROM a
> verified address. These mails are getting trashed as unverified sender
>
> 2007-04-26 22:37:35 H=(spserver2.kwcharlotte.local) [66.255.39.113] sender
> verify fail for <[EM
One of my hosted clients is receiving efax's that does not come FROM a
verified address. These mails are getting trashed as unverified sender
2007-04-26 22:37:35 H=(spserver2.kwcharlotte.local) [66.255.39.113] sender
verify fail for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: unrouteable mail domain "fax"
2007-04-26 22:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>
> --On 28 November 2006 15:08:34 -0800 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mark Nipper wrote:
>>> On 28 Nov 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does
anyone
know what variable that would be?
>
--On 28 November 2006 15:08:34 -0800 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Nipper wrote:
>> On 28 Nov 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
>>> know what variable that would be?
>>>
>>
>> All I can say is "wow"
Chris Lear wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
>> Mark Nipper wrote:
>>> On 28 Nov 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>>
I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
know what variable that would be?
>>> All I can say is "wow".
>>> ---
>>> http://www.exim.o
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Mark Nipper wrote:
>> On 28 Nov 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
>>> know what variable that would be?
>>>
>> All I can say is "wow".
>> ---
>> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.63/doc/html
Marc Perkel writes:
That variable doesn't contain the rejection string returned by the other
server. It's not the one I'm looking for.
The docs also mention $sender_verify_failure, So this may be what you are
looking for:
warn!verify = sender/callout
message = X-
Hello,
Marc Perkel writes:
That variable doesn't contain the rejection string returned by the other
server. It's not the one I'm looking for.
Don't know if this will help, but here is what I use:
warn!verify = sender/callout
message = X-Sender-Verify: Failed
## >
Mark Nipper wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
>> know what variable that would be?
>>
>
> All I can say is "wow".
> ---
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.63/doc/html/spec_html/ch39.html#SECTadd
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:27:43AM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
> know what variable that would be?
Ok, you are looking for a variable. Section 11.9 of the spec lists all
the variables.
Take an hour of your time and read
On 28 Nov 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
> know what variable that would be?
All I can say is "wow".
---
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.63/doc/html/spec_html/ch39.html#SECTaddressverification
After an address verificati
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:27:43AM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I have yet to fine the variable that contains the response. Does anyone
> know what variable that would be?
Everyone who has read the docs, I would guess.
Try searching for the $acl_ variables.
--
Dave Evans
Power Internet
PGP key
Stephen Gran wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:45:18AM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
>
>> It helps some. What I would like to do is capture the response and test
>> it in an ACL to see what the response is - or put the response in the
>> log file. Can that be done?
>>
>
> Marc, it helps a
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:45:18AM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
> It helps some. What I would like to do is capture the response and test
> it in an ACL to see what the response is - or put the response in the
> log file. Can that be done?
Marc, it helps a lot. There is a variable set when sender v
Graeme Fowler wrote:
> On 28/11/2006 16:03, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> Is this done with Exim? In my case the reason this bounced is that I
>> don't accept mail from:<> if the reverse DNS of the sender is broken.
>> But - what I find interesting is that whatever they are using captured
>> my
On 28/11/2006 16:03, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Is this done with Exim? In my case the reason this bounced is that I
> don't accept mail from:<> if the reverse DNS of the sender is broken.
> But - what I find interesting is that whatever they are using captured
> my message and returned it to me. Can
Is this done with Exim? In my case the reason this bounced is that I
don't accept mail from:<> if the reverse DNS of the sender is broken.
But - what I find interesting is that whatever they are using captured
my message and returned it to me. Can Exim capture the response line
like this did?
> "Jerry" == Jerry Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jerry> So, I've found that there are a few domains that are causing
Jerry> problems, and they all appear to be getting a SERVFAIL
Jerry> response back when I verify the address with exim -d+all -bt
Jerry> emailaddress
(snip dns queries f
So, I've found that there are a few domains that are causing problems, and
they all appear to be getting a SERVFAIL response back when I verify the
address with exim -d+all -bt emailaddress
Here's the snippet from that command on one of the addresses:
14:50:20 83643 dnslookup router called for [E
To validate the sender address, it is dnslookup. I miunderstood what you
were asking - the email will ultimately be processed by localuser for
delivery.
dnslookup looks like this:
dnslookup:
driver = dnslookup
domains = ! +local_domains : ! +forward_to_domains
transport = remote_smtp
ig
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 09:23:14AM -0500, Jerry Bell wrote:
> 09:17:14 1000 > dnslookup router <
> 09:17:14 1000 local_part=julie domain=bell-mortgage.net
> 09:17:14 1000 checking domains
> 09:17:14 1000 expanding: $domain
> 09:17:14 1000result: bell-mortgage.net
> 09:17:14
> Are you sure that's the router it's using? Please try "exim -d+all -bt
> ..."
> and, if you're still stuck, show us the results.
It's definitely a name resolution problem. I'm not sure why my name
server is rejecting the query. It works for most all other domains I get
mail for (well, hopefu
Jerry Bell wrote:
>
> Sorry about the obfuscation - I just don't want my wife or her friend's
> email addresses plastered all over.
Many people on this list are just ignoring your messages because of
that. You'll probably get more help here if you stop doing it.
http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/Mai
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:57:05AM -0500, Jerry Bell wrote:
> Here are the results of those tests:
> julie bell-mortgage.net cannot be resolved at this time:
> host lookup did not complete
>
> Here's the router:
> localuser:
> driver = accept
> domains = ${lookup mysql{select domain_name fr
The relavent part of my acl is simply this:
require verify= sender
Here are the results of those tests:
web3# exim -bv [EMAIL PROTECTED]
julie bell-mortgage.net cannot be resolved at this time:
host lookup did not complete
web3# exim -bt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
julie bell-mortgage.net cannot
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:23:45AM -0500, Jerry Bell wrote:
> Nov 9 00:32:13 web3 exim[68066]: H=civic.websitewelcome.com
> [67.18.153.226] sender verify defer for bell-mortgage.net>: host
> lookup did not complete
> Nov 9 00:32:13 web3 exim[68066]: H=civic.websitewelcome.com
> [67.18.153.226] F
I need some guidance as to what's causing sender verify to defer. I've
searched through the mail archives and can't quite find anything that
lines up with the problem I'm having.
Here are the snippets from the logs:
Nov 9 00:32:13 web3 exim[68066]: H=civic.websitewelcome.com
[67.18.153.226] send
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 06:28:03PM +0200, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> Quoting W B Hacker:
>> Thanks - but that is exactly the sort of artistic but useless
>> eye-confusion I need to avoid, and the primary reason I use
>> threading ONLY to check the point.
> Well, tastes obviously differ. I usually don't
Jeff Allen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have looked around but have yet to come up with a solution that works
> on my exim box. I am running Exim 4.43 with Spamassassin and a MySQL
> backend that is setup to run LDAP lookups to our internal Exchange
> servers. My problem lies with a partner of ours
* On 18/07/06 14:36 -0400, Jeff Allen wrote:
| Hi,
|
|
|
| I have looked around but have yet to come up with a solution that works
| on my exim box. I am running Exim 4.43 with Spamassassin and a MySQL
| backend that is setup to run LDAP lookups to our internal Exchange
| servers. My problem li
Hi,
I have looked around but have yet to come up with a solution that works
on my exim box. I am running Exim 4.43 with Spamassassin and a MySQL
backend that is setup to run LDAP lookups to our internal Exchange
servers. My problem lies with a partner of ours who have an option on
there website
W B Hacker schreef:
As in the screenshot:
http://conducive.org/threading.tiff
Funny to see my own post hilighted in there. Does that mean you were
just about to post an answer to my question? :-)
Best regards,
Martijn.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
--
## List de
W B Hacker wrote:
>>> Never did figure out how hitting 'reply' to a specific post
[...]
> But the original situation arose when creating a NEW subject, not on
> a reply.
Uhm, no. ?o)
> What seems to have happened instead is that the mesage-ID was new,
> but also that prior headers were left ove
Quoting W B Hacker:
>> look like: http://plonk.de/stuff/threading.png
> Thanks - but that is exactly the sort of artistic but useless eye-confusion I
> need to avoid, and the primary reason I use threading ONLY to check the point.
Well, tastes obviously differ. I usually don't even look into the
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> Quoting W B Hacker:
>
>> http://conducive.org/threading.tiff
>
>
> You miss a very effective way to read mailing lists. See how it could
> look like: http://plonk.de/stuff/threading.png
>
Thanks - but that is exactly the sort of artistic but useless eye-confusion I
nee
Quoting W B Hacker:
> http://conducive.org/threading.tiff
You miss a very effective way to read mailing lists. See how it could
look like: http://plonk.de/stuff/threading.png
> And, again, will someone kindly tell me what headers leave alone so as to
> help
> *others*?
um... I told you a whi
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:18:08PM +0800, W B Hacker said:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> *trimmed*
>
> >
> > Why are you stripping In-Reply-To and References and so forth anyway? I
> > can't immediately imagine a reason for doing it.
>
> Well - your very own post is a good example of a reason to c
Martijn Grendelman wrote:
>
>
> W B Hacker schreef:
>
>> As in the screenshot:
>>
>> http://conducive.org/threading.tiff
>
>
> Funny to see my own post hilighted in there. Does that mean you were
> just about to post an answer to my question? :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Martijn.
Nicer 'strokes
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>Tony Finch wrote:
>>
>>>Boggle! How do you expect a thread-aware MUA to deal with your
>>>messages sensibly when they have no thread information at all? Let
>>>alone "less" thread-aware MUAs.
>>
>>As in the screenshot: http://conduciv
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > Boggle! How do you expect a thread-aware MUA to deal with your
> > messages sensibly when they have no thread information at all? Let
> > alone "less" thread-aware MUAs.
>
> As in the screenshot: http://conducive.org/threading.tiff
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>> From inspection of the archive, I think I see the sort of problem it is
>>causing for those with less thread-aware MUA's, and am happy to fix
>>that.
>
>
> Boggle! How do you expect a thread-aware MUA to deal with your messages
> s
Stephen Gran wrote:
*trimmed*
>
> Why are you stripping In-Reply-To and References and so forth anyway? I
> can't immediately imagine a reason for doing it.
Well - your very own post is a good example of a reason to cut down on
parasitical headers:
===
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
>
> From inspection of the archive, I think I see the sort of problem it is
> causing for those with less thread-aware MUA's, and am happy to fix
> that.
Boggle! How do you expect a thread-aware MUA to deal with your messages
sensibly when they have no threa
Stephen Gran wrote:
> Why are you stripping In-Reply-To and References and so forth anyway? I
> can't immediately imagine a reason for doing it.
Those seemed to be the ones giving rise to 'thread stealing' accusations.
Never did figure out how hitting 'reply' to a specific post I had open in th
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 06:35:38PM +0800, W B Hacker said:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > References-based threading is not the same as sorting messages by subject.
>
> I don't sort by subject unless looking for something like last year's license
> key, but never mind.
>
> From inspection of the
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>>Btw, your MUA is misbehaving -- your replies have neither In-Reply-To:
>>>nor References: headers, so they're not associated with the thread to
>>>which you replied. Please could you fix that so that you d
* W B Hacker wrote (14/07/06 03:08):
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>> Btw, your MUA is misbehaving -- your replies have neither In-Reply-To:
>> nor References: headers, so they're not associated with the thread to
>> which you replied. Please could you fix that so that you don't break the
>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > Btw, your MUA is misbehaving -- your replies have neither In-Reply-To:
> > nor References: headers, so they're not associated with the thread to
> > which you replied. Please could you fix that so that you don't break the
> > t
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 08:02 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>>mail from: <>
>>>250 Ok
>>>rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300
>>>seconds (see http://...)
>>>
>>
>>The above is only one of many false-positives.
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 08:02 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
> > mail from: <>
> > 250 Ok
> > rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300
> > seconds (see http://...)
> >
>
> The above is only one of many false-positives.
'many'?
Poor greylis
Marten Lehmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> our mailserver refused a certain email of a customer and when we tried
> to track down the problem, we noticed that the server of the server
> replied to our verification like this:
>
> mail from: <>
> 250 Ok
> rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 450 <[EMAIL PROTECT
* On 13/07/06 21:26 +0200, Marten Lehmann wrote:
| Hello,
|
| our mailserver refused a certain email of a customer and when we tried
| to track down the problem, we noticed that the server of the server
| replied to our verification like this:
|
| mail from: <>
| 250 Ok
| rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTEC
Hello,
our mailserver refused a certain email of a customer and when we tried
to track down the problem, we noticed that the server of the server
replied to our verification like this:
mail from: <>
250 Ok
rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Greyliste
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
