Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 PM, jekillen wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:14 PM, RW wrote:
Just as long as you understand the distinction between forward and
reverse DNS. Based on the whois record for for your IP address, at the
moment you appear to have the following
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:14 PM, RW wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:36:41 -0800
jekillen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 9:05 AM, RW wrote:
The important thing is really your reverse DNS, if you have control
of it and looks like a real server name, e.g. mail.example.com,
you can
On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 PM, jekillen wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:14 PM, RW wrote:
Just as long as you understand the distinction between forward and
reverse DNS. Based on the whois record for for your IP address, at
the
moment you appear to have the following reverse DNS for the
of SPF (Sender Policy Framewokr) would immediately identify it as a spoof,
and will be blocked.
To learn more about this system, see
http://www.openspf.org/
if the same machine is for sending and receiving mail simply putting
IN TXT v=spf1 mx -all
is OK and enough
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:27:52 -0800
jekillen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you will allow me to break in on this exchange;
Does this advise apply if you have static ip service
The important thing is really your reverse DNS, if you have control of
it and looks like a real server name, e.g.
On Mar 12, 2007, at 9:05 AM, RW wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:27:52 -0800
jekillen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you will allow me to break in on this exchange;
Does this advise apply if you have static ip service
The important thing is really your reverse DNS, if you have control of
it and
On Mar 12, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
of SPF (Sender Policy Framewokr) would immediately identify it as a
spoof, and will be blocked.
To learn more about this system, see
http://www.openspf.org/
if the same machine is for sending and receiving mail simply putting
IN TXT
On Mar 11, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:27 PM, jekillen wrote:
If you will allow me to break in on this exchange;
Does this advise [don't run your own direct to MX mail server] apply
if you have static ip service and are running web servers from these
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:36:41 -0800
jekillen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 9:05 AM, RW wrote:
The important thing is really your reverse DNS, if you have control
of it and looks like a real server name, e.g. mail.example.com,
you can stay off the dynamic lists. It
Ed Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use freebsd on an older computer in my home network to run a
webserver, a few web apps (bugzilla, tikiwiki), and samba. I just
installed postfix via the ports collection so I can use the mail
functionality of bugzilla.
Bugzilla does its part correctly;
On Sunday 11 March 2007 10:45, Ed Zwart wrote:
I use freebsd on an older computer in my home network to run a
webserver, a few web apps (bugzilla, tikiwiki), and samba. I just
installed postfix via the ports collection so I can use the mail
functionality of bugzilla.
Bugzilla does its part
[mailed and posted]
On Mar 11, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Ed Zwart wrote:
I own my_domain.com. I've paid a hoster for the last couple years,
but that's ending in a week or so. Meanwhile, I've used dyndns to
point foo.homedns.org to my IP.
I am going to add my voice to those suggesting that you use
On Mar 11, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
[mailed and posted]
On Mar 11, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Ed Zwart wrote:
I own my_domain.com. I've paid a hoster for the last couple years,
but that's ending in a week or so. Meanwhile, I've used dyndns to
point foo.homedns.org to my IP.
If
On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:27 PM, jekillen wrote:
If you will allow me to break in on this exchange;
Does this advise [don't run your own direct to MX mail server]
apply if you have static ip service and are running web servers
from these addresses, with the ISP's blessing? (meaning you also
Thanks Bill, Josh and Jeffrey for answering my question. It was my
ISP. (So easy, I wish I had thought of that. I somehow managed to
figure out they were blocking 80 a month or so ago.)
I'm still a little fuzzy on legal entries for hostname and domain. I
set them to be mine, and it worked,
[mailed and posted]
On Mar 11, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Ed Zwart wrote:
I'm still a little fuzzy on legal entries for hostname and domain. I
set them to be mine, and it worked, and then for kicks, set it to
google.com, and that worked too. I looked at the headers, and can see
that the source can
Jeffrey, what you've suggested is what I've done. Thanks for the explanation!
e.
On 3/11/07, Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[mailed and posted]
On Mar 11, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Ed Zwart wrote:
I'm still a little fuzzy on legal entries for hostname and domain. I
set them to be
17 matches
Mail list logo
