Hi Stan,
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:24:53 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 12/9/2009 4:18 AM:
I understand why you avoid the real question. But hey - it's your server :-)
Do you? I have avoided it because these threads can quickly delve into
Mikael Bak put forth on 12/8/2009 3:31 AM:
mouss wrote:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)
It is
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 12/8/2009 3:31 AM:
mouss wrote:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply to
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:58:28 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
[snip]
Two words: LIST MAIL. When you reply directly to senders, all kinds
of unpleasant things can happen. Keep replies on list only and you
can avoid seeing some of the draconian things folks do.
setting the
John Peach put forth on 12/9/2009 7:03 AM:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:58:28 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
[snip]
Two words: LIST MAIL. When you reply directly to senders, all kinds
of unpleasant things can happen. Keep replies on list only and you
can avoid seeing some
Mikael Bak put forth on 12/9/2009 4:18 AM:
I understand why you avoid the real question. But hey - it's your server :-)
Do you? I have avoided it because these threads can quickly delve into
childish mud slinging if the participants aren't civil thoughtful
adults. I'm assuming we are all
mouss wrote:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)
It is nice to not reject mail from people who
Zitat von Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu:
mouss wrote:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)
It is
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu:
I could not agree more. I got this from him:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 thor.iszerviz.hu[62.77.131.9]: Client host rejected:
Mail not accepted from Hungary (in reply
Sta[snip]
Sanity checking and ease of troubleshooting is precisely why I'd kept
them separated for years, so each check type was in its respective class
heading. I guess given the things I'm doing with my static lists, it
makes no sense to continue my current method, given it makes the
mouss put forth on 12/7/2009 3:52 PM:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)
It is nice to not
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
mouss put forth on 12/7/2009 3:52 PM:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in
12 matches
Mail list logo
