On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 10:01, Bill wrote:
> That is what my understanding was. you wouyld asign like 5 to your primary
> email server and 10 to the backup. Assigning the same number would just make
> things a little screwy.
Ok, that would make sense. I'm still confused as to why one would let
m
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 10:01, Bill wrote:
> That is what my understanding was. you wouyld asign like 5 to your primary
> email server and 10 to the backup. Assigning the same number would just make
> things a little screwy.
>
yeah, it'll basically just round robin. An additional wrinkle is that
That is what my understanding was. you wouyld asign like 5 to your primary
email server and 10 to the backup. Assigning the same number would just make
things a little screwy.
On Star Date Saturday 15 November 2003 08:51 am, Michael Holt sent this
sub-space message.
> >
> > MX records have
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 07:22, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 06:57, Michael Holt wrote:
> > ...>
> > > if we do a mx record lookup for .com we get qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com. that
> > > server is not answering for port 25 stuff. Interestingly enough they have the
> > > same number assigne
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 06:57, Michael Holt wrote:
> ...>
> > if we do a mx record lookup for .com we get qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com. that
> > server is not answering for port 25 stuff. Interestingly enough they have the
> > same number assigned to there email servers which is 10 I thought that was a
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 22:17, Bill wrote:
> hmmm kinda weird. Here is the results of some nslookup stuff
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] beau]$ nslookup qualxserv.net
> Note: nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases.
> Consider using the `dig' or `host' programs instead. Run nslookup
hmmm kinda weird. Here is the results of some nslookup stuff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] beau]$ nslookup qualxserv.net
Note: nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases.
Consider using the `dig' or `host' programs instead. Run nslookup with
the `-sil[ent]' option to prevent this message
Well, I just wanted to give an update to the postfix prob.
The fix? I just found out that this company just switched their email
server from '.com' to '.net'. I don't know what they're doing, cause
they still have the '.com' server up and running. It must have been
some kind of redirect / relay
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 06:16, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:00, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> > >
> > > Consider coding it simply:
> > > > myhostname = holt-tech.net
> >
> > Ok, now the question becomes, why am I using my domain name instead
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:00, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> >
> > Consider coding it simply:
> > > myhostname = holt-tech.net
>
> Ok, now the question becomes, why am I using my domain name instead of
> my host name where it asks for my host name?
>From my pre
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:05, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > I added my client machine to /var/spool/postfix/etc/hosts and added the
> > above to main.cf then I sent a message to my boss from the client
> > machine to see what happens. I'm not sure when I'll he
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:57, James Sparenberg wrote:
> 3 people are in a car. An Electrical Engineer, A Windows programmer,
> and a Mechanical Engineer. They are trying to get a car to re-start
> after it dies. The Electrical Engineer is under the hood testing the
> wiring, the Mechanical Engin
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:53, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Pierre Fortin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Consider coding it simply:
> > > myhostname = holt-tech.net
>
> Exactly. Using "earth.holt-tech.net" gives no b
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:00, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Consider coding it simply:
> > myhostname = holt-tech.net
Ok, now the question becomes, why am I using my domain name instead of
my host name where it asks for my h
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> I added my client machine to /var/spool/postfix/etc/hosts and added the
> above to main.cf then I sent a message to my boss from the client
> machine to see what happens. I'm not sure when I'll hear back, so I'm
> just going to wait a bit and see. I wan
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:23, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:56, Michael Holt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:47, Jack Coates wrote:
> >
> > > you assume that they know what they're doing... many people in the IT
> > > world don't.
> >
> > LOL
> > I'm working on the 'NMCI' proje
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Consider coding it simply:
> > myhostname = holt-tech.net
Exactly. Using "earth.holt-tech.net" gives no benefit, because that name
does not resolve, while "holt-tech.net"
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Consider coding it simply:
> myhostname = holt-tech.net
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:22, Jack Coates wrote:
> if the address is in a DHCP pool assigned for home users, more and more
> servers out there will block direct SMTP connections from it; only
> relaying through the ISP's server will work in this case.
This is what I was first thinking; but I'm abl
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:06, Bill Mullen wrote:
> Unless, of course, the only one giving you fits is your boss', which we
> have already established is hosed in some bizarre fashion ... but
> having Postfix use a more valid hostname may fix that situation, too, even
> though that doesn't fully ex
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:49, Bill Mullen wrote:
> ...
> > Quite true, and one's best recourse in that situation is using the
> > ISP's server as a relay, at least for the problem domains (I have to
> > do that with a few). OTOH, that isn't what's happening
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:49, Bill Mullen wrote:
...
> Quite true, and one's best recourse in that situation is using the ISP's
> server as a relay, at least for the problem domains (I have to do that
> with a few). OTOH, that isn't what's happening to Michael, as his Postfix
> *can* send direct
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:06, Bill Mullen wrote:
>
> > Okay, I think you should at least change the "myhostname =" line,
> > found in the /etc/postfix/main.cf file. Having the short hostname of
> > your Postfix box here does you no good, as it is of utterl
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:06, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:26, Bill Mullen wrote:
> >
> > > Including the output of "postconf -n", run on the Postfix box, might
> > > be helpful also, as would the re-inclusion of the two sets of heade
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:26, Bill Mullen wrote:
>
> > Including the output of "postconf -n", run on the Postfix box, might
> > be helpful also, as would the re-inclusion of the two sets of headers;
> > all that matters is the last couple of "Received:" h
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:23, Jack Coates wrote:
> Yeah, nothing like interviewing job candidates to burst that bubble :-)
> There are some very good people out there, but the dangerous ones are
> the ones that know just enough to do things but don't know enough to
> realize that they shouldn't do
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:26, Bill Mullen wrote:
> But there is no such thing as "an email packet," per se - all "vanilla"
> SMTP transactions are conducted in plain text. This is why telnet is so
> useful as a method to test SMTP servers, because with it you can mimic
> what an SMTP client sends *
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:26, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:51, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > Cisco routers are actually very dumb. If the router or a regular
> > firewall is blocking the mail, then the three way TCP handshake will
> > never complete. If a proxy-using firewall (Raptor o
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:56, Jack Coates wrote:
> I'd stop by the sysadmin's desk on the way to the coffee pot and ask
> her/him, assuming it's the kind of place you can walk around in.
>
> Failing that, an off-hand comment about how their email system doesn't
> seem to accept mail from your hom
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:51, Jack Coates wrote:
> Cisco routers are actually very dumb. If the router or a regular
> firewall is blocking the mail, then the three way TCP handshake will
> never complete. If a proxy-using firewall (Raptor or the so-called
> "security servers" in PIX and Check Point
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:56, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:47, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > you assume that they know what they're doing... many people in the IT
> > world don't.
>
> LOL
> I'm working on the 'NMCI' project in Bremerton, WA right now - the
> 'Naval Marine Corps Intran
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:47, Jack Coates wrote:
> you assume that they know what they're doing... many people in the IT
> world don't.
LOL
I'm working on the 'NMCI' project in Bremerton, WA right now - the
'Naval Marine Corps Intranet'. I believe that there are a few really
sharp people doing th
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> I haven't done any playing with cisco routers, but I would imagine that
> the ios is smart enough to drop anything except an email packet at port
> 25
But there is no such thing as "an email packet," per se - all "vanilla"
SMTP transactions are conducted
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:59, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:56, Bill wrote:
> > I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
> > you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
> > I dont remember ever seing a Cisco rou
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 21:16, Michael Holt wrote:
> ...>
> > Except they drop connection before he could ever send From.. Maybe
> > they've set a ridiculously low timeout or something, but it doesn't act
> > like any real world mailserver I've ever seen.
>
> See, that's the thing. I haven't done
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 21:05, Michael Holt wrote:
> ...>
> > your setup is probably fine. Theirs is FUBAR'd. No fault of yours.
>
> Well, it seems to be the general opinion that I can't really do anything
> about this situation? It just seems so odd that they would make their
> servers *that* ina
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:56, Bill wrote:
> I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
> you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
> I dont remember ever seing a Cisco router checking the header files in emails
> to block a per
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:56, Bill wrote:
> I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
> you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
> I dont remember ever seing a Cisco router checking the header files in emails
> to block a per
> > Sympa doesn't always tell us when it /dev/null's a mail. I have
> > an email i have sent over a dozen times, but it just doesn't go
> > thru, and i get no errors
> >
>
> funny thing is, it sent a copy back to me :-)
That's the sympa we know and love...
> You guys will probably
> get m
I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
I dont remember ever seing a Cisco router checking the header files in emails
to block a person. I think they may have a timeout issue like
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 19:27, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 17:10, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
> >
> > > I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> > > email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received s
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 19:26, Jack Coates wrote:
> > Ok, I don't fully understand the term 'whitelisting', but I assume that
> > it means only specified senders get in?
> right.
>
> > I'm able to send to any account
> > I've ever tried in the past (hotmail, yahoo, my server when using
> > squir
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 17:10, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> > email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received string. Maybe to keep
> > from getting email from a server
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 19:51, Eric Huff wrote:
> > Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just
> > telnet to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos
> > than a human.
>
> > You can send mails though, -- I posted an example of
> > how to do it earlier today, with t
> Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just
> telnet to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos
> than a human.
> You can send mails though, -- I posted an example of
> how to do it earlier today, with the Dead Kennedies quote, but I
> think it's still floating
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 17:10, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> > email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received string. Maybe to keep
> > from getting email from a server
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:49, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:34, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > Their server won't accept connections from anything that I have access
> > too, and I have access to some pretty high traffic (and legit :-) mail
> > servers -- I don't see how they can get ma
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
> I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received string. Maybe to keep
> from getting email from a server that's been taken over as a relay? If
> this is the case,
Yeah it looks like they have some issues with mail.
There MX record shows
> qualxserv.com
Server: 66.47.48.51
Address:66.47.48.51#53
Non-authoritative answer:
qualxserv.com mail exchanger = 5 qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com.
Authoritative answers can be found from:
qualxserv.com na
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:34, Jack Coates wrote:
> Their server won't accept connections from anything that I have access
> too, and I have access to some pretty high traffic (and legit :-) mail
> servers -- I don't see how they can get mail from any one. They don't
> even give the chance to AUTH.
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:18, Michael Holt wrote:
... it's not about your message headers ...
> Now, I've changed the ip's and machine name's but you get the idea.
> This is sent to a test account just to see what the headers end up
> like. The problem is that when I email my boss (I'm a contracto
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:40, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:16, Michael Holt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:38, Jack Coates wrote:
> >
> > > Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just telnet
> > > to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos th
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:16, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:38, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just telnet
> > to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos than a human.
> > You can send mails though, -- I posted an
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:38, Jack Coates wrote:
> Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just telnet
> to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos than a human.
> You can send mails though, -- I posted an example of how to do it
> earlier today, with the Dead Kenn
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:07, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 13:37, Jason Williams wrote:
>
> > $ telnet 65.246.197.34 25
> > Trying 65.246.197.34...
> > Connected to 65.246.197.34.
> > Escape character is '^]'.
> > 521 qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com access denied
> > Connection closed by fore
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 13:37, Jason Williams wrote:
> $ telnet 65.246.197.34 25
> Trying 65.246.197.34...
> Connected to 65.246.197.34.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 521 qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com access denied
> Connection closed by foreign host.
Ok, question -- why would a server let you telnet into
At 01:25 PM 11/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> I dont see anything in your headers that would warrant them being
malicious
> or spam.
> The only real thing I can see is that when you logged in remotely, its
> showing the verizon connection that was initiated.
Is this a bad thing? This is just saying
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 13:10, Jason Williams wrote:
> I dont see anything in your headers that would warrant them being malicious
> or spam.
> The only real thing I can see is that when you logged in remotely, its
> showing the verizon connection that was initiated.
Is this a bad thing? This is
At 01:01 PM 11/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Hey all,
Sorry for the long post, but I'm confused here. I've been using
squirrelmail for several months now, but I wanted to switch to a local
mail client. Squirrelmail really is local because my postfix email
server is behind the firewall along with my h
Hey all,
Sorry for the long post, but I'm confused here. I've been using
squirrelmail for several months now, but I wanted to switch to a local
mail client. Squirrelmail really is local because my postfix email
server is behind the firewall along with my host machines. I want to
use the webmail
60 matches
Mail list logo
