I'm afraid most of us really cannot help you because we really
don't understand what the issue is.
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:53:41AM -0800, Larry Kelley wrote:
> Maybe you need a better ISP?
> Larry
Sounds like he does.
>
> ----------
> From: Glen Lee Edwards[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:25 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: test post
>
> Charles,
>
> Don't play games. I run a virtual domain and 4 cnames off my linux
> dial-up box, plus I administer several other domains I own that are on
> other servers from here, and have several users on this box. I've been
> told I HAVE to use envelope masquerading and if I don't to get lost.
> Envelope masquerading forces every outgoing letter to read as from my
> dial-up account address.
If you have control over the virtual domains, why is your ISP even involved
here? Sounds like they just don't want your business. It's no big secret
that most of them don't like people hosting their own domains. Particularly
behind dial-up.
For one, Send mail on your box should be deliviering the mail directly to
the remote mail hosts, not through your ISP. Are you instead refering to
your domain participants being able to send mail on their own machines
branded with their virtual domain address? If so, you use either sendmail
or qmail on your box with some very selective relaying to let just your
customers use you as an SMTP gateway. Again, your box will then directly
send the mail to the receiving gateway and your ISP isn't even involved.
That's why none of us really understands the nature of your problem.
> This makes my Linux box absolutely worthless, as
> I then can't run a single domain from here for my business, nor can I
> administer the domains I run off the other servers.i
What does any of this have to do with administering domains on the
other servers?
> If I forward mail to
> my ISP and use it as the MTA instead (a windows configuration) no mail
> from here goes out as my ISP rejects mail from my users with a "we don't
> relay" message.
I have good and bad to say about this. The ISP is obviously making an atempt
at controlling spam. (Good) However, you are on a dial-up and it is refusing
to relay mail from your box. (Bad) It's the ISPs job to relay mail on behalf
of their dialup customers, regardless of the the message envelope. They can
authenticate the user requesting transport as one of their customers because
they can fingerprint the IP address as one of their dialup lines. (Even if
it's really one of your customers sending mail from your box, it will finger
print as you by the IP address and thus should be allowed.) This just sounds
of an ISP that really does not want to do business with you.
> Again all mail sent out HAS to read as from my dial-up
> account, making Linux on this box worthless.
As it would any other OS. SCO, Solaris, Windows NT, etc... There are limitations
to the SMTP protocol that become major issues under the wrong set of
circumstances.
> Let's face reality, if you want to use Linux, you better be prepared to
> spend $500 a month for a leased line (as I was recently quoted) so
> mailhelp, vger.rutgers.edu, and mail-abuse.org consider you to be a part
> of the financially elect so you're allowed to use Linux as a Linux box,
> not a Windows clone.
>
> I say again, with the configuration mailhelp and mail-abuse.org/dul are
> forcing us to use, Linux is absolutely worthless. Under that
> configuration Windows is more user friendly.
Again, I don't understand what you mean. What functionality is Windows
providing that linux is not? If you tried to configure mail on an NT
server the way you're describing, you will have exactly the same problem
because it appears you're using the technology wrong.
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Charles Galpin wrote:
>
> >Glen
> >
> >You have completely missed the boat here. No one is forcing you to not use
> >your linux box as your MTA. Thousands of us do it every day. You just need
> >to setup your config properly (as you have been told - and how - already)
> >
> >charles
> >
Listen to Charles here, I think he's trying to say the same thing I am.
--
J. Scott Kasten
jsk AT tetracon-eng DOT net
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
