On 08/18/2010 07:21 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>
> On 08/18/2010 09:08 PM, JD wrote:
>>On 08/18/2010 04:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 15:52 -0700, JD wrote:
Thanks to all who made important suggestions.
It now works.
>>> Adding SOLVED to the Subject k
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 18:08 -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 04:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 15:52 -0700, JD wrote:
> >> Thanks to all who made important suggestions.
> >> It now works.
> > Adding SOLVED to the Subject kind of implies that you'll explain *how*
> > it
On 08/18/2010 09:08 PM, JD wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 04:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 15:52 -0700, JD wrote:
>>> Thanks to all who made important suggestions.
>>> It now works.
>> Adding SOLVED to the Subject kind of implies that you'll explain *how*
>> it was solved.
On 08/18/2010 04:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 15:52 -0700, JD wrote:
>> Thanks to all who made important suggestions.
>> It now works.
> Adding SOLVED to the Subject kind of implies that you'll explain *how*
> it was solved. That's the point.
>
> poc
>
Well, it was no
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 15:52 -0700, JD wrote:
> Thanks to all who made important suggestions.
> It now works.
Adding SOLVED to the Subject kind of implies that you'll explain *how*
it was solved. That's the point.
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change s
Thanks to all who made important suggestions.
It now works.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On 08/18/2010 03:28 AM, Tim wrote:
> Are you aware that if your SMTP server is on an IP in the range of
> addresses your ISP doles out to its private customers, you may be on a
> blacklist of IPs to ignore. It's a common practice for many other mail
> servers, or their incoming mail filters, to
On 08/18/2010 09:06 PM, Tim wrote:
> While the next person to get your IP mayn't actually receive mail,
> they'll still get attempts to connect to their SMTP server, whether or
> not they even have them, until other people's systems find out about
> your new IP.
Sure. As a matter of fact, I did
On 08/17/2010 08:28 PM, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 07:50 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>> On 08/17/2010 05:10 PM, JD wrote:
>>>On 08/17/2010 04:56 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:47 -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>> On 08/
On 08/18/2010 09:13 PM, Tim wrote:
> The trouble is that the problem is external, and out of your control.
> Others can use any number of filtering techniques, good or bad. If your
> on just one black list, that's a problem.
Yes, many things are external to ones system and out of ones control.
JD wrote:
> I have done all that. Really. ISP (at&t) has unblocked port 25
> per my request. So I can indeed smtp out. But when an smtp request
> comes in to the router, the router seems to get confused as to the
> session type - and calls is an Unknown session type, and blocks
> the request. Rout
Tim:
>> Are you aware that if your SMTP server is on an IP in the range of
>> addresses your ISP doles out to its private customers, you may be on a
>> blacklist of IPs to ignore. It's a common practice for many other mail
>> servers, or their incoming mail filters, to only accept mail sent from
>
Tim:
>> Whether it be monthly, or more rapidly, SMTP servers aren't supposed to
>> change (numerical IP) addresses. It's not a good idea to run a SMTP
>> server from a dynamic address. When your address changes, you lose mail
>> (from anything that cached your IP, and keeps on using the cached
>>
On 08/18/2010 06:28 PM, Tim wrote:
> Are you aware that if your SMTP server is on an IP in the range of
> addresses your ISP doles out to its private customers, you may be on a
> blacklist of IPs to ignore. It's a common practice for many other mail
> servers, or their incoming mail filters, to o
On 08/18/2010 06:31 PM, Tim wrote:
> Whether it be monthly, or more rapidly, SMTP servers aren't supposed to
> change (numerical IP) addresses. It's not a good idea to run a SMTP
> server from a dynamic address. When your address changes, you lose mail
> (from anything that cached your IP, and k
Tim:
>> Dyndns, and other such things, are useful for giving yourself a hostname
>> that you can control, to a static IP. But aren't going to be much good
>> if you have a dynamic IP. Private webserving's easy enough with a
>> varying IP, mail serving's another matter.
PaulCartwright:
> You can
Gordon Messmer:
>> You'll want to arrange a smart-host through which you can route all of
>> your outbound mail.
JD:
> I talked to them, and I am able to at least send out email.
Are you aware that if your SMTP server is on an IP in the range of
addresses your ISP doles out to its private custome
On 08/17/2010 07:50 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 05:10 PM, JD wrote:
>>On 08/17/2010 04:56 PM, Craig White wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:47 -0700, JD wrote:
On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
>> On
On 08/17/2010 05:10 PM, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 04:56 PM, Craig White wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:47 -0700, JD wrote:
>>> On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 08/17/20
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:10 -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 04:56 PM, Craig White wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:47 -0700, JD wrote:
> >> On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> >>>On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
On 08/17/2010 04:56 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:47 -0700, JD wrote:
>> On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>>>On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 09:33 AM, JD wrote:
>> Re: a.b.c.d
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:50 -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 04:35 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > On 08/17/2010 02:28 PM, JD wrote:
> >> So, why would any mail client/server send an email message
> >> to my ip address on a port other than 25?
> > They never would.
> >
> >> Seems that I would need to
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 16:47 -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> > On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
> >>On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >>> On 08/17/2010 09:33 AM, JD wrote:
> Re: a.b.c.d ==>valid.host.name
> and valid.host.name
On 08/17/2010 04:35 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 02:28 PM, JD wrote:
>> So, why would any mail client/server send an email message
>> to my ip address on a port other than 25?
> They never would.
>
>> Seems that I would need to configure the dydns account to
>> forward the email to m
On 08/17/2010 03:35 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
>>On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>> On 08/17/2010 09:33 AM, JD wrote:
Re: a.b.c.d ==>valid.host.name
and valid.host.name ==>a.b.c.d
does not seem to apply to the goog
On 08/17/2010 02:28 PM, JD wrote:
> So, why would any mail client/server send an email message
> to my ip address on a port other than 25?
They never would.
> Seems that I would need to configure the dydns account to
> forward the email to me on that alternate port, no?
Yes. I merely meant that
On 08/17/2010 02:25 PM, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 08/17/2010 09:33 AM, JD wrote:
>>> Re: a.b.c.d ==> valid.host.name
>>> and valid.host.name ==> a.b.c.d
>>> does not seem to apply to the google smtp server I use for Thunderbird.
>> You did your test ent
On 08/17/2010 01:30 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 10:09 AM, JD wrote:
>> But I think at&t is blocking port 25.
> Normally they will, and that's good. It prevents infected Windows
> desktops from sending spam directly.
>
> You'll want to arrange a smart-host through which you can rout
On 08/17/2010 01:29 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 11:26 AM, JD wrote:
>> Well, that would require that sendmail would have to listen
>> on that alternate port. How is that accomplished?
> That's probably a step you don't need to take. You just need your
> router to forward a port oth
On 08/17/2010 01:27 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 09:33 AM, JD wrote:
>> Re: a.b.c.d ==> valid.host.name
>> and valid.host.name ==> a.b.c.d
>> does not seem to apply to the google smtp server I use for Thunderbird.
> You did your test entirely backward. You did a forward lookup
On 08/17/2010 12:53 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, JD said:
>> Well, that would require that sendmail would have to listen
>> on that alternate port. How is that accomplished?
> Change DaemonPortOptions.
>
> If you are using the .mc (recommended) way of configuring sendmail, do
> som
On 08/17/2010 10:09 AM, JD wrote:
> But I think at&t is blocking port 25.
Normally they will, and that's good. It prevents infected Windows
desktops from sending spam directly.
You'll want to arrange a smart-host through which you can route all of
your outbound mail.
--
users mailing list
use
On 08/17/2010 11:26 AM, JD wrote:
> Well, that would require that sendmail would have to listen
> on that alternate port. How is that accomplished?
That's probably a step you don't need to take. You just need your
router to forward a port other than 25 to your sendmail server's port
25. The po
On 08/17/2010 09:33 AM, JD wrote:
> Re: a.b.c.d ==> valid.host.name
> and valid.host.name ==> a.b.c.d
> does not seem to apply to the google smtp server I use for Thunderbird.
You did your test entirely backward. You did a forward lookup first,
and then checked the PTR of the IP which was ret
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:26:11AM -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 11:12 AM, fred smith wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:09:55AM -0700, JD wrote:
> >>On 08/17/2010 09:36 AM, Tim wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 15:24 -0400, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> Get a dyndns.com name for your
Once upon a time, JD said:
> Well, that would require that sendmail would have to listen
> on that alternate port. How is that accomplished?
Change DaemonPortOptions.
If you are using the .mc (recommended) way of configuring sendmail, do
something like:
dnl for local connections
DAEMON_OP
On 08/17/2010 11:12 AM, fred smith wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:09:55AM -0700, JD wrote:
>>On 08/17/2010 09:36 AM, Tim wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 15:24 -0400, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
Get a dyndns.com name for your router public ip address and set up at
dyndns to get mai
On 08/17/2010 12:56 PM, PaulCartwright wrote:
>On 08/17/2010 12:36 PM, Tim wrote:
>> Dyndns, and other such things, are useful for giving yourself a hostname
>> that you can control, to a static IP. But aren't going to be much good
>> if you have a dynamic IP. Private webserving's easy enough
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:09:55AM -0700, JD wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 09:36 AM, Tim wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 15:24 -0400, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> >> Get a dyndns.com name for your router public ip address and set up at
> >> dyndns to get mail delivered to that name.
> > Of course, if your
On 08/17/2010 12:36 PM, Tim wrote:
> Dyndns, and other such things, are useful for giving yourself a hostname
> that you can control, to a static IP. But aren't going to be much good
> if you have a dynamic IP. Private webserving's easy enough with a
> varying IP, mail serving's another matter
On 08/17/2010 12:09 PM, JD wrote:
> My router's public IP address is static. So that is not a problem.
> But per other replies on this list, it sounds like
> a complicated puzzle to solve.
> I have a dyndns name. and it maps onto my router's static IP
> address. But I think at&t is blocking port 2
On 08/17/2010 09:36 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 15:24 -0400, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
>> Get a dyndns.com name for your router public ip address and set up at
>> dyndns to get mail delivered to that name.
> Of course, if your IP changes, then mail is going to get screwed up
> during the
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 15:24 -0400, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> Get a dyndns.com name for your router public ip address and set up at
> dyndns to get mail delivered to that name.
Of course, if your IP changes, then mail is going to get screwed up
during the time it takes for next delivery attempt to
On 08/17/2010 08:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 08/16/2010 10:46 AM, JD wrote:
>> Clearly, a full setup of DNS server for your domain
>> must be set up, per this wiki, along with mx records ...etc.
>>
>> Does this prevent one from settiing up and using sendmail
>
On 08/16/2010 10:46 AM, JD wrote:
>
> Clearly, a full setup of DNS server for your domain
> must be set up, per this wiki, along with mx records ...etc.
>
> Does this prevent one from settiing up and using sendmail
> on a LAN to send and receive email to/from the outside world?
full setup of DNS server for your domain
> must be set up, per this wiki, along with mx records ...etc.
>
> Does this prevent one from settiing up and using sendmail
> on a LAN to send and receive email to/from the outside world?
>
>
> In a word, no.
>
> Get a d
this prevent one from settiing up and using sendmail
> on a LAN to send and receive email to/from the outside world?
>
In a word, no.
Get a dyndns.com name for your router public ip address and set up at
dyndns to get mail delivered to that name. Set your router to forward
incoming SMTP
to
I read the wiki for setting up and configuring sendmail
http://www.wikihow.com/Configure-Sendmail
Clearly, a full setup of DNS server for your domain
must be set up, per this wiki, along with mx records ...etc.
Does this prevent one from settiing up and using sendmail
on a LAN to send and
48 matches
Mail list logo
