As near as I can tell, your mail agent doesn't talk to the world, but talks to infoserve. As long as infoserve accepts SMTP from maxys, and are configured correctly, it should work.
>I wondering if there is something more. My domains are setup that way >because my port provider prefers to manage the reverse address mapping >with generic names like > >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 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
