On 2003-01-05 16:16, Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-04 14:02:46 +1030:
> > cat > $myfile
> > server=`egrep -i < $myfile "In: [HE][HE]LO"|sed 's/^.*LO *//' `
> > if [ "$server" = "" ]; then
> > server=`egrep -i < $myfile "^Subject.*errors from "
On Sunday, 5 January 2003 at 16:16:22 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-04 14:02:46 +1030:
>> On Thursday, 2 January 2003 at 16:53:05 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>> plus, you stuff the output in $myfile, and get the input from it as
>>> well. How's that supp
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-04 14:02:46 +1030:
> On Thursday, 2 January 2003 at 16:53:05 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > plus, you stuff the output in $myfile, and get the input from it as
> > well. How's that supposed to work? :)
>
> Heh. You're looking at this section, no doubt:
>
On Thursday, 2 January 2003 at 16:53:05 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-02 16:40:45 +0100:
>> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-30 11:26:22 +1030:
>>> On Sunday, 29 December 2002 at 18:46:12 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-29 10:55:11 +103
On Thursday, 2 January 2003 at 16:40:45 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-30 11:26:22 +1030:
>> On Sunday, 29 December 2002 at 18:46:12 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-29 10:55:11 +1030:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
For more information, take
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-30 11:26:22 +1030:
> On Sunday, 29 December 2002 at 18:46:12 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-29 10:55:11 +1030:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> For more information, take a look at the following, which is a message
> >> I send to systems which
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-30 11:26:22 +1030:
> On Sunday, 29 December 2002 at 18:46:12 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-29 10:55:11 +1030:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> For more information, take a look at the following, which is a message
> >> I send to systems which
On Sunday, 29 December 2002 at 18:46:12 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-29 10:55:11 +1030:
>
> ...
>
>> For more information, take a look at the following, which is a message
>> I send to systems which appear to be bona fide attempts from broken
>> reverse addresse
On Sunday, December 29, 2002, at 10:06 AM, Len Conrad wrote:
ISTR Postfix replies with 450 to (almost) all errors by default.
And there are errors where you need to escalate the 4xx response to
554 to stop the sending MTA from re-trying for days, or just harvest
the 4xx ip's to a new .map
ISTR Postfix replies with 450 to (almost) all errors by default.
And there are errors where you need to escalate the 4xx response to 554 to
stop the sending MTA from re-trying for days, or just harvest the 4xx ip's
to a new .map filean block with 554.
Postfix's new "sender address verificati
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-28 19:15:49 +0100:
> Today Harry Tabak wrote:
>
> > Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
> > gets rejected.
> >_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
>
> If 450 is some error code, then it's only
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-29 10:55:11 +1030:
...
> For more information, take a look at the following, which is a message
> I send to systems which appear to be bona fide attempts from broken
> reverse addresses. Looking at the name of the sender, I'm sure this
> one is not bona fide, an
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 09:03:08PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> freebsd.org does not care if your reverse DNS mapping points back to
> the name you identified yourself with, it only checks that the name
> the server IDs itself as when submitting email resolves to the correct
> IP address.
>
>
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 10:34:28PM -0500, Fuzzy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 28 December 2002 at 22:32:30 +, lewiz wrote:
> > No, this means that your DNS is flaky. As somebody observed, this is
> > a transient error. Your MTA retries about e
On Saturday, December 28, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
No, this means that your DNS is flaky. As somebody observed, this is
a transient error. Your MTA retries about every 30 minutes for about
5 days, and sooner or later the reverse lookup succeeds, and your mail
is delivere
On Saturday, 28 December 2002 at 22:32:30 +, lewiz wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 08:53:15AM -0500, Harry Tabak wrote:
>> Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
>> gets rejected.
>> _450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
>
> I
On Saturday, 28 December 2002 at 11:27:53 -0600, Len Conrad wrote:
>
>> Easier said than done. I've been assigned 66.45.116.136/29 by the ISP.
>
> .136 is not a power of 2 which is required for classless reverse
> delegation.
They don't need to be powers of 2.
> It should be .132/29 or .140/29
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 08:53:15AM -0500, Harry Tabak wrote:
> Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
> gets rejected.
> _450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
I'm getting this all the time too. It seems that after a while my mai
>_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
>
Your mail server is identifying itself as [66.45.116.138] instead of a
host with (valid) forward DNS records (hosts that do this are blocked
as a -- very effective -- anti-spam measure). Fix your mail server to
identif
Today Harry Tabak wrote:
> Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
> gets rejected.
>_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
If 450 is some error code, then it's only a _temporary_ error/failure
(RFC 1893). Maybe the DNS servers
Easier said than done. I've been assigned 66.45.116.136/29 by the ISP.
.136 is not a power of 2 which is required for classless reverse
delegation. It should be .132/29 or .140/29
I control DNS for quadtelecom.com, but I don't control the reverse
lookup. I'd like to know the exact algorith
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 08:53:15AM -0500, Harry Tabak wrote:
> Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
> gets rejected.
>_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
>
> What are the rules for sending mail! I'm not a spammer -- I'
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:50:54 +0100
From: rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Harry Tabak wrote:
> Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com
> (66.45.116.138) gets rejected.
> _450_Client_host_reject
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 08:53:15AM -0500, Harry Tabak wrote:
> Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
> gets rejected.
> _450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
>
> What are the rules for sending mail! I'm not a spammer -- I'v
Harry Tabak wrote:
Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com
(66.45.116.138) gets rejected.
_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
What are the rules for sending mail! I'm not a spammer -- I've
never sent spam!!! Your rejection is very dis
Mail sent from my main server, gatehouse.quadtelecom.com (66.45.116.138)
gets rejected.
_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[66.45.116.138]
What are the rules for sending mail! I'm not a spammer -- I've
never sent spam!!! Your rejection is very disconcerting.
Harry Ta
26 matches
Mail list logo
