What do you mean by 'pass reverse DNS lookup'?
My DNS query shows:
bushaw.org. 43200 A 64.60.193.244
moveitout.com. 43200 A 64.60.193.244
244.193.60.64.in-addr.arpa. 86400 PTR
64-60-193-244.cust.telepacific.net.
Clearly the PTR doesn't match the A records.
>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
>
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
