Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:04:23 +0100
From:      Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net>
To:        "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <kdk@daleco.biz>
Cc:        chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FAO Kevin Kinsey
Message-ID:  <20031022090423.GA350@submonkey.net>
In-Reply-To: <3F95F668.8040808@daleco.biz>
References:  <20031021211049.GN3708@submonkey.net> <3F95F668.8040808@daleco.biz>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:15:52PM -0500, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. wro=
te:
> Ceri Davies wrote:
>=20
> >Kevin,
> >
> >This is retarded.
> >Not only is your MTA rejecting mail and not saying why, but it's also do=
ing
> >it for mail addressed to postmaster.
> >
> >Apologies to the rest of the list, but I'm pretty short of options...
> >
> >Ceri
> >
> >--=20
> >=20
> >
>=20
> FWIW, I'll apologize; but I think you're the only
> one having this problem.  Not that it's your fault,
> or even aimed at you directly.  Read on.

I came across a bit strongly there, for which I also apologise.

> >It would be a good idea to provide some idea why the mail was blocked.
> >Fancy giving me a clue?
>=20
> You caught me slightly off guard.  I get mail
> to "webmaster" and postmaster@daleco.biz
> with great frequency, as well as kdk@.
>=20
> A check at DNSreport.com did, however, show
> that my backup MX was rejecting these addresses,
> at least according to the site.  I recently rebuilt
> that box with a larger HDD and apparently missed
> an entry in ~/relay-domains.
>=20
> But, that's not even the half of it.  I decided to
> see where you're coming from:
>=20
> <kadmin@elisha> [/etc/mail] [21:56] #host shrike.mine.nu
> shrike.mine.nu has address 81.103.67.204
> <kadmin@elisha> [/etc/mail] [21:56] #grep 81. /etc/hosts.allow
> sshd : 64.81.184.138 : deny
> sendmail : 221.113.81.118 : deny
> sendmail : 164.77.181.18 : deny
> sendmail : 164.77.181.33 : deny
> sendmail :  65.57.172.181 : deny
> sendmail : 68.81.193.240 : deny
> sendmail : 204.118.181.49 : deny
> sendmail : 81. : deny
> sendmail : 62.157.81.199 : deny
>=20
> Some time ago, sick of spamming, I wrote
> a script that kicks addresses from which
> spam is received into /etc/hosts.allow.
>=20
> We also added some entries manually
> during the writing process.
>=20
> We caught your entire Class A.  Dunno
> how, exactly.  Lots of junk from there,
> I suppose??
>=20
> Yeah, we need a better way.  Maybe
> someday.  Until then, shrike gets
> a better ranking, I suppose.......

Hmm, well I wouldn't do that, as my IP is dynamic.
However, 81/8 is shared over at least 3 ISPs so it might be an
idea to be more granular.

The main point here though is that I relay my mail through 212.250.77.214,
which hopefully isn't on the list above and therefore I'm still not sure why
it's being rejected; if there has been spam going through that machine then
I'd like to know as I'm personally responsible for that host.

> >    Lists and ranges are allowed to co-exist in the same field.  "1-3,7-=
9"
> >    would be rejected by ATT or BSD cron -- they want to see "1-3" or=20
> >    "7,8,9"
> >    ONLY.
> >
> >i.e. this cron does allow it.
>=20
> Might we consider making this more clear
> in some manner?  The fact that this is Vixie
> cron, and not BSD cron, would not be obvious
> to the novice.  Witness me, for example... <blush>

;-)  I'll see what I can do.  If this is in contrib/ then we'd
probably need to submit it back to Paul which may take a while longer,
so please bear with it.

> Since these are, at least, casually, the names of
> the two major "branches" of UNIX-like OS's, it's
> relatively easy to assume that the paragraph in
> question is comparing the (native-actually-Visie)
> "BSD" cron to the "ATT"/SysV cron, particularly
> after a long day in the trenches.

Yeah, I can see where the confusion stems from.

Ceri
--=20

--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/lkgXocfcwTS3JF8RAuU8AJ9CUVehdld1X88/RDJPaJDIUfgwhACeM0Od
KPjPBTUTJVuNbfF/8bOnEpo=
=pmbH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031022090423.GA350>