These domains are all on the same computer, using the same mailserver and they all pass reverse DNS lookup- Bushaw.org Saxpics.com SimProUSA.com CoastalMicroSupply.com MoveItOut.com
Mark Bushaw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Conlon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] Mail > Ok, here's a typical setup (ignoring NS records) that people use for > hosting domains > > Your main zone is > > mydomain.com A 123.456.789.123 > www.mydomain.com CNAME mydomain.com > mydomain.com MX 10 mydomain.com > > Lets assume you have a full Class C, since it's simpler than classless > delegation (when you have 8/16/32/64/128 IP addresses) > > Then your reverse zone includes: > > 123.789.456.123.in-addr.arpa PTR mydomain.com > > So you're typically sending mail with your address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) via > your SMTP server at mydomain.com which passes the reverse lookup test. > > Your client at herdomain.com is using virtual hosts on yours server and > is set up as: > > herdomain.com A 123.456.789.123 > www.herdomain.com CNAME herdomain.com > herdomain.com MX 10 herdomain.com > > There can't be a single pointer to two A records, so when > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sends mail, the reverse lookup points to > mydomain.com! This causes the mail to bounce if the reverse lookup test > is used. > > > > >Very Interesting! I have multiple domains and a single mail server. > >The mail server has its own domain (smtpmirage.net). > >All the hosted domains A records point directly to the IP address. The MX > >record points to mail@<domain>.com (and mail@<domain>.com is an A record > >that points to the IP address). > >Seems to work OK...... > > > >Mark Bushaw > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ben Johansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:36 PM > >Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] > > > > > >> Interesting > >> > >> Didn't realize that because I have multiple domains on mine. > >> > >> >Anyway, it's just a rant. I had a server crash on me earlier this year > >> > >> >when it got hijaced by a spammer, and I've spent a lot of hours this > >> year > >> >fighting off spam. But I still think it's better to allow mail from > >> >senders that don't pass the reverse lookup, and instead rely on black > >> >hole lists at the server, and some simple filters on the mail readers. > >> > >> >Because I don't want to have to tell my clients that we can't receive > >> >mail from them. > >> > >> Considering turning it off. > >> > >> Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com > >> Authorized Witango Reseller http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm > >> Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller > >> http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bill Conlon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:11 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] > >> > >> Off-topic: > >> > >> I would send this directly, but it might bounce. > >> > >> One problem w/ PTR records is they map one-to-one to A records. But > >> many > >> names (both A and CNAME records) map to one PTR. Hence if you support > >> many domains with a single mail server, you can't satisfy the reverse > >> lookup condition. > >> > >> Also, you can't always keep PTRs up to date unless you run the reverse > >> zone for your subnet. Some ISPs will NOT provide classless delegation, > >> so you have to depend on the ISP to maintain your PTRs, leaving you at > >> their mercy -- not a good thing in my opinion. > >> > >> For most of our clients for whom we provide mail, I ask them to use our > >> server for POP, but continue to use their ISP for SMTP. Some though > >> prefer to use our server for both, and the consequence is that AOL just > >> doesn't get messages from them. > >> > >> Of course AOL's hypocracy is the big story, since they and hotmail have > >> been big spam sources. And much spam now flows through open relays, > >> which may still have PTR records that match the A record, so what does > >> that do? > >> > >> Anyway, it's just a rant. I had a server crash on me earlier this year > >> when it got hijaced by a spammer, and I've spent a lot of hours this > >> year > >> fighting off spam. But I still think it's better to allow mail from > >> senders that don't pass the reverse lookup, and instead rely on black > >> hole lists at the server, and some simple filters on the mail readers. > >> > >> Because I don't want to have to tell my clients that we can't receive > >> mail from them. > >> > >> >Hi, > >> > > >> >Sorry you couldn't connect. > >> > > >> >I went to dnsreport.com and your mail server doesn't reverse DNS > >> >(checkout fail in MX section) > >> > > >> >http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=internetcommercesolu > >> t > >> >ions.net > >> > > >> >In order to curb spam there is a shift in this, AOL has shifted to this > >> >and those who have mail servers that don't have PTR (reverse DNS) > >> cannot > >> >post to AOL. There are a bunch of companies that are following suit > >> > > >> > > >> >Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com > >> >Authorized Witango Reseller http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm > >> >Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller > >> >http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm > >> > > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Fogelson, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:26 PM > >> >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > >> >Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code > >> > > >> >Ben, > >> > > >> >I have had that trouble in the past as well. You might want to check it > >> >out. > >> >I was going to buy a Witango update from you on the day before the > >> price > >> >increases, but couldn't get through you email server. > >> > > >> >Have made the update since. > >> > > >> >Steve Fogelson > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: John McGowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:13 PM > >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code > >> > > >> > > >> >Ben, > >> > > >> >I tried to send this post to you off the list, but your mail server > >> >doesn't seem to be accepting any thing from my mail server. > >> > > >> >Anyway, see my comments below about nested @includes. > >> > > >> > > >> >Ben Johansen wrote: > >> > > >> >>Off List, > >> >> > >> >>Now, I remember (coffee finally kicked in) > >> >> > >> >>The reason your sub-include of the TML works is because TML is one of > >> >>the extensions setup in the web server to tell the web server that > >> >>Witango is responsible to process this file. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >No, the @include tag doesn't interact at all with the web server. It > >> >also doesn't care about file extensions. When the app server comes > >> >across an @include, it doesn't care what file extension it is... it > >> >simply includes the file and evaluates any meta code it comes across. > >> > > >> >>In the case where an included HTML file calling a SUB-HTML file this > >> is > >> >>not the case. The SUB would not have its metatags processed > >> >> > >> >> > >> >Yes they are... See the enclosed example... I just tested this out. > >> > > >> >test.taf does an @include of test1.html > >> > > >> >test1.html does an @include of test2.html > >> >test2.html does an @include of test3.html > >> >test3.html executes @currentdate. > >> > > >> > > >> >/John > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________________________________ > >> _ > >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > >> >_______________________________________________________________________ > >> _ > >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________________________________ > >> _ > >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > >> > > >> > >> > >> Bill Conlon > >> > >> To the Point > >> 345 California Avenue Suite 2 > >> Palo Alto, CA 94306 > >> > >> office: 650.327.2175 > >> fax: 650.329.8335 > >> mobile: 650.906.9929 > >> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> web: http://www.tothept.com > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________________________________________ > >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > >> > >> ________________________________________________________________________ > >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > > > >________________________________________________________________________ > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > > > > > Bill Conlon > > To the Point > 345 California Avenue Suite 2 > Palo Alto, CA 94306 > > office: 650.327.2175 > fax: 650.329.8335 > mobile: 650.906.9929 > e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.tothept.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
