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
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
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
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
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
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,
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]
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.
:[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
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
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:
11 matches
Mail list logo