Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-18 Thread Nicolas Desir
Pascal Gloor wrote: You should reject the mail with a permanent fatal error. Otherwise the enduser wont get any error message. Pascal, and other too, what do you think of the verisign smtp implementation?: guiness:~# telnet akdjflasdf.com 25 Trying 64.94.110.11... Connected to

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-18 Thread Pascal Gloor
You should reject the mail with a permanent fatal error. Otherwise the enduser wont get any error message. Pascal, and other too, what do you think of the verisign smtp implementation?: very bad, and the error message should not be 550 (refering to nanog discussions). Are you planning to

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-18 Thread Nicolas Desir
Pascal Gloor wrote: very bad, and the error message should not be 550 (refering to nanog discussions). Are you planning to patch your resolvers? That's already done for one, (the djb one), i will take this opportunity to migrate from bind to djb for the second. Nicolas

RE: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-18 Thread Steven Glogger
very bad, and the error message should not be 550 (refering to nanog discussions). i agree. Are you planning to patch your resolvers? i'm migrating to the patched bind9. anyway, if i want to deactivate the 'feature' i can simply remove the 2 entry's in the config... so, easy to use.. -steven

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread A. Uk / dataway GmbH
Steven Glogger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 17 Sep 2003: does anyone does: IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0 ? yes. No complaints so far. -anthony -- | Anthony Uk| dataway GmbH | Tel. +41 1 299 9988| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Hohlstrasse 216 | Fax

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread Pascal Gloor
does anyone does: IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0 ? yes. No complaints so far. I personally dont think this is a good idea, you will just make the customers able to resolve the host and not being able to contact it. Means, mail waiting in the queue for days and browsers saying,

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread Andre Oppermann
Steven Glogger wrote: does anyone does: IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0 ? Not very smart. It will fill your mail server queue with mails to non- existent domains until final timeout (normally 7 days). -- Andre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread Jorge Morgado
same here. but bind patch sounds like a 'more clean' hack. still to be done, BTW ;-) jorge On 17-Sep-2003 A. Uk / dataway GmbH wrote: Steven Glogger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 17 Sep 2003: does anyone does: IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0 ? yes. No complaints so far.

RE: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread Steven Glogger
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of A. Uk / dataway GmbH Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0 Steven Glogger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 17 Sep 2003: i'm not ready to patch only for verisign my dns server

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread Roger Buchwalder
A. Uk / dataway GmbH wrote: Steven Glogger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 17 Sep 2003: i'm not ready to patch only for verisign my dns server, therefore i will null route the stuff - even if i eliminate some vhosts which are running on their machine... exactly. All these solutions which have

Re: [swinog] IP ROUTE 64.94.110.11 255.255.255.255 Null0

2003-09-17 Thread Pascal Gloor
and a small mailserver like all @mail - 0null: hehe You should reject the mail with a permanent fatal error. Otherwise the enduser wont get any error message. Pascal -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: