ip.address.in.reverse.in-addr.arpa PTR hostIP.port.provider (not mydomain.com)I have not noticed any problems with my mail being rejected. Even Ben Johansen has been receiving my messages all the time whenever I write to him directly.
Sri
Bill Conlon wrote:
Ok, here's a typical setup (ignoring NS records) that people use for hosting domainsYour 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 yearwhen it got hijaced by a spammer, and I've spent a lot of hours thisyearfighting 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=internetcommercesolutions.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)cannotpost 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 thepriceincreases, 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 thisisnot the case. The SUB would not have its metatags processedYes 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.tafBill 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.tafBill 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
