Can anyone please delete them and block the sender's address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Done:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is now blacklisted on mail.bluewin.ch
and i'm about to clean our queue.
Regards,
Adrian
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
Hi,
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
be sure.
No no no.
RFC: 2476:
| 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
sensibility.
There isn't really a (valid) reason to block port 587:
Blocking outgoing
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
Hello Benoit,
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.
Anyway:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL55483 is still there
but
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
interface?
You are looking for an 'SMSC Large Account'
http://www.swisscom-mobile.ch/scm/gek_sms_large_account-de.aspx
You'll get your own 'short id'
Hi Jeroen
;; -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).
And
ok, but why is there no answer?
Does 194.42.48.120 work correctly?
Regards,
Adrian
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
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
Trying 212.243.223.139...
Connected to i.dell.com (212.243.223.139).
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD /
Hi,
Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78),
..yes
Bluewin does a normal forward DNS lookup, using the result from the
above query.
we don't.
The resolver implementation of our MTA software appears to have a problem
with truncated UDP responses.
(Btw: Why do you have
Hi Roger,
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
Hi,
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
attempted
to access such illegal sites (such as Wikipedia)
So
Registration deadline:31.12.2008 23:59:59
klugscheiss
2008 is a 'leap-second-year' [1] and ends at 23:59:60, *NOT* at 23:59:59 :-p
/klugscheiss
Regards,
Adrian
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
___
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
year...
No: 23:59:60 is not the same as 00:00:00
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat
So 31.12.2008 will be 86401 seconds long instead of 86400 seconds.
But anyway..
Hi Daniel,
> Your nameserver breaks https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8020
I'd rather say 'does not implement' instead of 'break':
As RFC 8020 points out, the (almost 30 years older) RFC 1034 is very unspecific
about the details on how a nameserver should behave in such a situation.
(And
> I'm pretty surprised that of the 1.7M domains with an MX record, only 57%
> have DKIM
I don't see how one could reliability gather this data from DNS:
DKIM allows you to specify a selector in the header of the mail: This mail for
example will use 'sx1' as the selector (check out the header
20 matches
Mail list logo
