thought my ISP would be sensitive to RIPE.
Thanks for all of the feedback.
From: Andreas Grip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reverse DNS lookups
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:44:36 +0200
I had problems to get my ISP to setup reverse DNS on my IP:s but then I
turned to RIPE
pop corn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) If they don't add reverse PTR records for my virtual domains, I've
been debating telling the Internic to change my DNS servers for the
virtual domains to the base address of my own dedicated server. It's
not as if my virtual domains are subdomains of my
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 06:07:59AM -, pop corn wrote:
Their staff initially said 1) reverse PTR records were never necessary;
Hell. Did you really say they call themselves an ISP? Uh-oh.
--
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg,
Wrong mailing list, my apologies, I meant to send this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: pop corn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reverse DNS lookups
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:07:59 -
I'm dealing with a new ISP that has been pretty much ok until this problem.
I realized that they
I had problems to get my ISP to setup reverse DNS on my IP:s but then I
turned to RIPE and they sended an e-mail to my ISP. The day after that
the reverse was working :-)
So maybe you should try go through RIPE...
Andreas
like RIPE on my side.
After all, I did pay for that IP address block. The least they can do is put
both A and PTR records in their DNS servers.
From: Andreas Grip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reverse DNS lookups
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:44:36 +0200
I had problems to get my
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
Very political question. As long as you don't reject envelope senders of
and #@[],
Jenny Holmberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
Very political question. As long as you don't reject envelope senders of
and #@[], you won't be violating any RFCs.
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 08:52:27AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
[snip]
It would be a violation of RFC 1123, which states:
[...]
The HELO receiver MAY verify that the HELO parameter really
corresponds to the IP address of the sender. However, the
receiver
Erwin Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, it makes sense to do DNS lookup f=FCr the MAIL FROM: address.=20
If you have reliable DNS services - I've been on the other end of
that, a site permanently rejecting each mail (a 5xx code) because they
were having problems resolving the sending
Hi,
At 09:49 7.3.2001 +, James R Grinter wrote:
Erwin Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, it makes sense to do DNS lookup f=FCr the MAIL FROM: address.=20
If you have reliable DNS services - I've been on the other end of
that, a site permanently rejecting each mail (a 5xx code)
So, in my request for opinions, pls., some/most/many admins would like
to refuse messages from non-local machines that do not have a valid
RDNS for the HELO FQDN, but feel such a policy is inappropriate from
the user's POV.
I have a lot of users that have a common ~/.procmailrc, (mostly spam,
Erwin Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I dont know, whether the HELO/EHLO from the MTA-Client means anything and
whether it can be used for a reverse DNS lookup.
However, it makes sense to do DNS lookup fr the MAIL FROM: address.
This is alrady feasable by some qmail patches,
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
Very political question. As long as you don't reject envelope senders of
and #@[], you won't be violating any RFCs. However, you
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:07:46AM -,
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
I don't think this buys you much in the way of spam protection and can
block legitimate
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
Good idea?
Fascist idea?
Opinions pls.
Do you relay for users running POP clients who send their outbound
through you via
John Conover writes:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
No.
Neither is it reasonable to reject messages from a host whose reverse
DNS hostname lacks an MX record.
Neither is it reasonable to reject
John Conover writes:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
No.
Indeed. Nevertheless, I think some elaboration will make the following
answers easier to understand to less experienced mail managers.
At 10:07 AM 06-03-2001 -, John Conover wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
Well two of our service providers haven't arranged reverse DNS lookups for
our Internet visible subnets. Our DNS servers are
At 10:07 AM 06-03-2001 -, John Conover wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
Well two of our service providers haven't arranged reverse DNS lookups for
our Internet visible subnets. Our DNS
Hi,
I dont know, whether the HELO/EHLO from the MTA-Client means anything and
whether it can be used for a reverse DNS lookup.
However, it makes sense to do DNS lookup fr the MAIL FROM: address.
This is alrady feasable by some qmail patches, including my SPAMCONTROL.
Have a look at:
Never thought that it was a problem. I used to use a ml.org dynamic IP
host for a temporary mailserver.
I never had a problem, receiving or sending.
At 03:32 PM 1/24/00 -0500, you wrote:
What does not having reverse DNS really mean when it comes to a mail server?
We are moving our server
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:32:51PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
How many servers really reject mail based on reverse?
mail.com does. I have see others. I don't know why they to
that. It must slow things down quite a bit. Spammers can easily
defeat it.
Neil
Michael Boyiazis writes:
I went through qmail-smtpd and added a bit of code to
do a gethostbyaddr.
Why?
Tcpserver already does it for you.
set to 'unknown'. Would it make sense to deny mail if
either of these is 'unknown'. and/or set tcpserver
option -p?
My personal experience is
Title: RE: reverse DNS
This happens in corporate situations with firewalled networks a lot. I speak from unfortunate experience :)
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 10:41 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: reverse DNS
Michael Boyiazis writes:
I went through qmail-smtpd and added a bit of code to
do a gethostbyaddr. If I don't get a value, I refuse the
mail due to no reverse DNS. Now looking over some
comments in this list and with a little closer look at the
setup routine in qmail-smtpd.c it
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Boyiazis writes:
I went through qmail-smtpd and added a bit of code to do a
gethostbyaddr. If I don't get a value, I refuse the mail due to no
reverse DNS. Now looking over some comments in this list and with a
little closer look at the
27 matches
Mail list logo
