Can anyone please delete them and block the sender's address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is now blacklisted on mail.bluewin.ch
and i'm about to clean our queue.
swinog mailing list
The only thing coming close to it in scalability is Critical Path.
Does the windows version of Critical Path still exist? ;-)
After all it's a good/stable product.
(Well: i dislike the CP-smtpd .. it works unless you try to do
anything funky .. but replacing it with postfix/qmail isn't a
And why not using the existing authentication protocol on outgoing smtp
server ? So the sender can use the smtp server of the provider of its
email address from any network and SPF can work without any problem.
How would this solve the forwarding problem?
And how are you going to teach
So I would suggest offering SMTP (AUTH) support on ports 25 and 26, just to
No no no.
| 3. Message Submission
| 3.1. Submission Identification
| Port 587 is reserved for email message submission as specified in
| this document. Messages received on this port are
would they not then block official port 587 as well as port 25?
That was the position I heard the 'customer service rep' take the last
time I tried to solve such a problem through appeal to bureaucratic
There isn't really a (valid) reason to block port 587:
Seems to me that the benefit of cutting down on Spam would be worth the
trouble of using port 587...
Blocking port 25 is just a quick-n-dirty 'fix'.
What will happen when virus-writers are going to spam using 587 (The
credentials are stored on the users PC anyway..)?
What would people do to
Have other seen this behaviour of exchange servers
Yes. One of our MX servers somehow managed to loose the connection to
the ldap server (didn't dare to re-establish it) and only returned
(valid) tempfail messages.
Sending mails from Exchange (internal messaging system) to this
Is there someone left who uses them to reject mails on smtp level?
Yes, we are still using Spamhaus.org on our MX servers, but we are using the
rsync feed and we are able to whitelist IPs within a few seconds.
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL55483 is still there
It's a little expensive if you have many SMS'es - does anyone know who
to contact (e.g. at Swisscom) to get a package-deal with a direct TCP
You are looking for an 'SMSC Large Account'
You'll get your own 'short id'
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 22394
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
We are aware that ns.bwlbmsg1zhh.bluewin.ch. doesn't play well with IPv6
(and we also know that some lb-vendors are not able to fix such simple bugs).
ok, but why is there no answer?
Does 188.8.131.52 work correctly?
swinog mailing list
dell.com works, but try any other host that is being contacted while loading
www.dell.com and is hosted by akamai, such as i.dell.com
No problem via Bluewin-DSL:
$ telnet i.dell.com 80
Connected to i.dell.com (184.108.40.206).
Escape character is '^]'.
Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (220.127.116.11),
Bluewin does a normal forward DNS lookup, using the result from the
The resolver implementation of our MTA software appears to have a problem
with truncated UDP responses.
(Btw: Why do you have
Now we found out that bluewin doesn't allow authenticated smtp-relay
from users outside their ip-range, so all our customers with
bluewin-mailadresses would have no smtp-server available.
That's not entirely correct:
smtpauth.bluewin.ch will relay mails from non-bluewin-ip-ranges
Thank you for clearing this up. So we have to give bluewin-users with
free bluewin mail-accounts an smtp-account on our servers I think.
Well, they could call our helpdesk and ask them to disable the
'Restricted IP-Range' feature for a specific mailaccount.
Our helpdesk will disable it
Filtering locally simply means stopping end users to access illegal sites.
Ok, but the sites are still there and everybody else will still have access !
Yes, but i'm sure that the 'local' netclean box can log IPs of people who
to access such illegal sites (such as Wikipedia)
Registration deadline:31.12.2008 23:59:59
2008 is a 'leap-second-year'  and ends at 23:59:60, *NOT* at 23:59:59 :-p
swinog mailing list
Sorry for getting off-topic .. but...
23:59:60 is the same (if wold exist) like 00:00:00 and this is the New
No: 23:59:60 is not the same as 00:00:00
So 31.12.2008 will be 86401 seconds long instead of 86400 seconds.
Mail list logo