On Sat, 13 May 2006, netguy wrote:
reply and/or voice their opinions, thanks. I did not ever get a definitive
answer so I figured that I was treading on new ground; sorta. It seems to me
Hmm, these is something you should keep in mind that postmaster@ and
abuse@ are to be available in
Thanks! This is great info!
Regards,
KAM
- Original Message -
From: Jan Pieter Cornet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] DNS and MX records
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:48:42PM -0400, Kevin A.
Hi all
[snip]
It was described in a now-expired ietf document
draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt,
still available at:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt
This does not answer the question of how to stop spammers from using
network resources. So that is probably very
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 07:43, netguy wrote:
It was described in a now-expired ietf document
draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt,
still available at:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt
This does not answer the question of how to stop spammers from using
network
On Mon, 15 May 2006, netguy wrote:
This does not answer the question of how to stop spammers from using network
resources. So that is probably very wishfull thinking but if another avenue
could be taken away from them... Spam is sent to domain.tld WITHOUT checking
MX records.
Dunno what's
On May 15, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 07:43, netguy wrote:
It was described in a now-expired ietf document
draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt,
still available at:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt
This does not answer the question of how
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 09:43, John Rudd wrote:
This does not answer the question of how to stop spammers from using
network resources. So that is probably very wishfull thinking but if
another avenue could be taken away from them... Spam is sent to
domain.tld WITHOUT checking MX records.
I'm using port 465 and SSL for local submissions, and I'd like
to tweak either Mdf or SA (or both) so that if I forward (for
instance) a copy of a spam to someone outside, that I in
turn don't get my message rejected because it looks like spam.
Now, why isn't trusted_networks taking effect?
David F. Skoll wrote:
(although it does have one, to catch people who are too lazy to type
www. into their browsers.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually, domain.tld would be the same as www.domain.tld, registered
for those too lazy to type www. as part of the address. Of course
marketing
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm using port 465 and SSL for local submissions, and I'd like
to tweak either Mdf or SA (or both) so that if I forward (for
instance) a copy of a spam to someone outside, that I in
turn don't get my message rejected because it looks like spam.
Now, why isn't
Kelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/15/2006 01:41:17 PM:
The only real use for the www. prefix is as a visual cue indicating that
the address refers to a website. It's shorter and more aesthetically
pleasing than http:// It's certainly not easy in speech. double-u
double-u double-u dot
On 5/15/06, Kelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David F. Skoll wrote:
(although it does have one, to catch people who are too lazy to type
www. into their browsers.)
---SNIP---
Am I the only one who finds this talk of lazy users a bit... I don't
know, condescending? (Admittedly, this is on a
As a sidenote, I do remember reading (although I can't remember where)
that it's considered bad form to assign an IP address to a domain.
IP's should be assigned to hosts...
Anyone else ever read that? I can't remember if it was an RFC or what.
-Ben
--
Ben Kamen - O.D.T., S.P.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Do we want to change the line:
if ($Features{SpamAssassin}) {
in mimedefang-filter, for instance, to skip this check if $auth_authen
is valid?
Yup. http://www.mimedefang.com/kwiki/index.cgi?SMTPAuth
David, perhaps the synthesize_received_header could add an
On 15 May 2006 at 10:41, Kelson wrote:
Really, the only reason websites tend to be named www.example.com these
days is tradition.
Well, yes. That's the tradition for the *default* website for a
domain. Other websites at that domain may have different hostnames.
Almost every major domain
Jeff Rife wrote:
The only real use for the www. prefix is as a visual cue indicating that
the address refers to a website.
No, it's because it's not store.domain.tld (where you buy stuff from
the company) or support.domain.tld (where they provide support info),
etc.
I'm not talking about
On 15 May 2006 at 12:06, Kelson wrote:
No, it's because it's not store.domain.tld (where you buy stuff from
the company) or support.domain.tld (where they provide support info),
etc.
I'm not talking about www vs. other hostnames -- I'm talking about www
vs. the plain domain name.
I run an Apache Web Server. When I create a virtual domain I add both the
ServerName and ServerAlias directives to each. I know IIS has a similar
convention.
Is it a lazy user or a lazy admin?
My $.02 for what it's worth!!
Pete
Am I the only one who finds this talk of lazy users a bit... I
On May 15, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Peter P. Benac wrote:
I run an Apache Web Server. When I create a virtual domain I add both
the
ServerName and ServerAlias directives to each. I know IIS has a
similar
convention.
Is it a lazy user or a lazy admin?
Lazy user. Because it's not about typing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Do we want to change the line:
if ($Features{SpamAssassin}) {
in mimedefang-filter, for instance, to skip this check if $auth_authen
is valid?
Yup. http://www.mimedefang.com/kwiki/index.cgi?SMTPAuth
Thanks. Should that be
20 matches
Mail list logo
