| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Comments:
<0> so i guess it might be worth looking into..
<1> delewis: I used to have private accounts here.. never had any chance to get me a reverse DNS entry.. as soon as I switched to an xDSL business account, I got my reverse entry.
<0> that's their definition of "business" :P
<2> if you're sending mail, you definitely won't a reverse DNS
<2> s/won't/want/
<1> NineVolt: haha
<2> otherwise, people like me reject your mail outright.
<1> delewis: indeed.
<3> ayups.
<4> the isp at my other house changed the ptr for me
<3> and thats a very sane option.
<0> what if i have several domains there?
<4> but it's a small isp and i know them pretty well too
<0> (never done mail before)
<5> all men same. simple word ***ociation: pictures....NAKED.
<3> NineVolt: no issue. As long as you have /a/ PTR record.
<0> hm. thanks for the tip then.
<2> just make sure your MX entries and your reverse DNS matches up.
<2> the rest is irrelevant.
<3> delewis: even that isn't always needed.
<2> Lion-O, that's what I check for, generally.
<1> delewis: I have mail.domain.org, mail.domain2.org pointing at my mailserver..
<3> That would be too intrusive IMO. Simply make sure you have a valid PTR record which works both ways.
<1> delewis: having ONE mx record for several domains is ****y.
<2> get more IPs :-)
<6> I think I will consider trying to get a static IP before I go for reverse dns anyway :P
<1> delewis: that means extra $$
<3> Or simply stop sending delewis pr0n and divert all that to me :)
<2> if you can't, you're not in an environment to be sending mail.
<4> w00t, skank, and babymama =)
<3> delewis: thats bull**** IMO.
<1> *nod*
<2> Lion-O, that's how it is.
<7> I have looked everywhere. I need MySQL3.4 for some project and all I can find on the web is either 3.2 or 4+. Can anyone help?
<3> delewis: for you perhaps, not for the rest of the Net.
<6> so... to be sending mails you should have multiple IPs, pay a dozen extra and blah blah
<6> otherwise you are not qualified for it?
<4> Jostein: no, but you shouldn't be sending direct in that case
<3> that stupid attitude is bringing us right back to "We're the OS vendor and we know whats best for you. If you can't write NTFS you have no business writing an OS".
<2> Jostein, indeed, and which case you should be using your ISPs SMTP server or someone else's that is competent and in the right position to provide the necessary service requirements.
<2> Lion-O, you have an affinity for producing poor analogies.
<6> jesus what a BS opinion
<3> delewis: and you have a nasty habbit of trolling, or walking right on the edge.
<6> why are we feeding this troll anyway?
<4> Jostein: why do you say that? i agree with him.
<0> wait, i paid to open port 25 but i should still use the isp's server anyway?
<0> they only take mail from @theirdomain.com
<4> NineVolt: for outgoing, yes
<8> Dual2003: What makes you think you need such an archaic version of MySQL?
<9> it doesn't even exist
<0> so that's not a viable option. i can't spoof other From: or Reply-to: fields.
<9> well, depending on how he looks at it..
<4> NineVolt: so complain to them about it?
<0> o_O
<6> jlgaddis: because THAT usually works, eh
<4> NineVolt: or use somebody else to send through
<2> with as much scrutiny on mail, nowadays, you should be using an SMTP server that has reverse PTRs, etc. -- not your jacked-up home ****.
<7> mwilson: my professor
<0> somehow i don't think that a residential isp allowing email from @anywhere.com on its smtp servers is a good idea.
<2> mail is not a service to be run by the unqualified and underprovided.
<5> Simba: that Lion on picture looks soooo goofy lol
<8> Dual2003: Unlikely.
<3> NineVolt: hmm, depends..
<4> NineVolt: lots of isp's have users with other email addresses that they prefer to use as their outgoing address
<0> plus, then -they- would need a separate IP for every domain i'm hosting
<0> according to what you said.
<4> NineVolt: besides, if an isp user is blasting out spam, you'd hope the isp would notice
<3> NineVolt: ayups. Which is plain out silly.
<2> NineVolt, most ISPs don't care about the From: line.
<2> and rightly so.
<0> i can't send mail through my isp's smtp server unless it's from within their domain.
<0> whether it's the From: or Reply-to: or both, i'm not sure.
<4> NineVolt: your isp is teh **** =)
<3> NineVolt: However, just because you're using domain.com doesn't mean that its mail is automaticly handled by 'mx.domain.com'. That could easily be "mx.mydomain.com".
<2> now, running an SMTP server to receive mail or to send mail are two different things.
<2> I run my own SMTP server to receive mail.
<4> ]$ host -t mx jeremygaddis.com
<4> jeremygaddis.com mail is handled by 10 w00t.linuxwiz.net.
<2> but I use my ISP's SMTP server for outgoing mail.
<2> because they're in a far better position to match the service requirements required to run an SMTP server for sending mail than I.
<0> now i'm thoroughly confused.
<9> delewis: the problem with that comes in when you start dealing with DomainKeys and SPF
<3> This way I can always hand out solid proof that a certain email has actually arrived where it should be. Simply by using my logs.
<0> even if that were true, it wouldn't meet -my- requirements.
<9> delewis: and have users from different ISPs
<2> NineVolt, this is why you shouldn't be running your own SMTP service.
<0> of having clients emails coming from @theirdomain.com, not @myispdomain.com
<2> NineVolt, but you aren't in the position to pay for extra IPs to have the appropriate PTR entries.
<0> unfortunately, lots of clients are interested in me running my own SMTP service.
<2> and most credible mail servers will reject your mail outright.
<2> I know mine will.
<0> first off, i don't think they'd give me PTR entries, money or not.
<4> mine would as well
<3> delewis: very few will...
<0> second, i don't think they do multiple IP's per location.
<2> they should
<2> if its a business line.
<0> it's cable.
<9> jlgaddis: really?
<0> you've seen a cable isp that does **** like that?
<0> because i haven't.
<3> So far I've mailed a lot. My connection has a valid PTR record, just not one matching the mta name. And I haven't had any issues so far.
<10> fredk-
<2> I've seen plenty.
<2> Charter will give you up to 12 IPs, IIRC.
<2> for a business line
<4> Feb 11 11:35:24 linuxwiz postfix/smtpd[28671]: warning: 217.196.164.17: hostname relay.tdma.edu.ua verification failed: Name or service not known
<2> and extra IPs after that are on a separate per-ip charge.
<0> i guess i can look into it, but i sincerely doubt that'll work out.
<4> NineVolt: my cable isp does that
<0> 12 free ip's?
<2> no
<2> you still have to pay extra.
<0> o_O
<0> i'm paying $10/month for service.
<2> but the first 12 are cheaper than getting a 13th and a 14th.
<0> if the ip's are more than 50 cents each, i'm not interested.
<2> NineVolt, this is why you aren't in a position to run your own mail services.
<6> NineVolt: Im closer to $50, but work pays, so I dont care :P
<0> breakfasttime.
<0> br
<0> b
<2> chances are you have absolutely no purpose for providing your own mail service.
<9> jlgaddis: just sent you an email here..
<6> did I mention my ISP blocks port 25 for anything but their own mailservers?
<2> you can convince yourself of this, but that's the reality of it.
<3> Jostein: auch ;)
<9> Jostein: mine too ..
<6> Lion-O: good thing gmail uses esmtp :P
<9> Jostein: that would be smtps
<6> well. whatever. glad I got that google hosted mailing
<4> Jostein: 587/tcp =)
<9> jlgaddis: good :)
<3> or ssmtp :)
<9> Jostein: good :)
<3> 465/tcp
<9> jlgaddis: so, did my email give any warnings?
<11> 587/tcp is the growing standard it seems...
<4> K_F: dunno, haven't looked
<4> MattJ: yeah, it's been available forever, just becoming popular, though
<4> K_F: no, you have a valid ptr record
<9> MattJ: the standard goes towards TLS on p25 though
<4> K_F: it doesn't match the other way
<9> jlgaddis: yeah, but then I don't get the own IP for every domain debate
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#php
#AllNiteCafe
#linuxhelp
#MissKitten
#php
#skype
second most used letter in english
Xvnc stopped
naked tatiyana
Javascript executes on page load
|
|