Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:21:23 -1000 From: NetOpsCenter <noc@hdk5.net> To: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@goldmark.org> Cc: jekillen <jekillen@prodigy.net>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: getting mail to work Message-ID: <45F83D23.4020102@hdk5.net> In-Reply-To: <7CB78BD9-21C4-4372-B421-6D7A26CF3695@goldmark.org> References: <6660f1280703110845w52b8babapf2814da0ac6424ae@mail.gmail.com> <56A5B5E4-5644-4C50-9346-5EC9A372C3DB@goldmark.org> <eb7d4fbd9ce9f59269d552242aab679f@prodigy.net> <20070312170530.65898c23@gumby.homeunix.com> <9b8f6952375affce2f85577c9c2792b6@prodigy.net> <20070313011458.0f3534fd@gumby.homeunix.com> <493e2590c7f615d9fb9db209919e147d@prodigy.net> <7CB78BD9-21C4-4372-B421-6D7A26CF3695@goldmark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 PM, jekillen wrote: > >> >> On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:14 PM, RW wrote: > > >>> Just as long as you understand the distinction between forward and >>> reverse DNS. Based on the whois record for for your IP address, at the >>> moment you appear to have the following reverse DNS for the address >>> range 75.7.236.224 - 75.7.236.231: >>> >>> $ for i in `jot 8 224` ; do dig +short -x 75.7.236.$i ; done >>> adsl-75-7-236-224.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-225.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-226.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-227.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-228.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-229.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-230.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >>> adsl-75-7-236-231.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net. >> > > >> OK, It appears that it is the ISPs name servers who >> are responding. When I call up my sights I get to the >> machines they are on according to my present >> DNS setup. > > > But that is what the public sees. If (which I strongly doubt) your > own internal nameservers give a different result to > > $ dig +short -x 75.7.236.224 > > then it still makes no difference to the rest of the world which, > when doing a *reverse* lookup on your IP address doesn't get anything > that looks like your domain name. > > >> try www.brushandbard.com > > > That's not the question. RW was (correctly) talking about *reverse* > DNS, aka DNS PTR records. That is we are looking at the translation > *from* number *to* name. > > If you look up one of my statically IP addresses > > $ dig +short -x 72.64.118.115 > n115.ewd.goldmark.org. > > you get that instead of > > static-72-64-118-115.dllstx.fios.verizon.net > > It took me many unpleasant hours on the phone to Verizon to get the > reverse look up the way it is now. I spent those hours on the phone > specifically because I did want to run my own direct to MX mailserver. > ##### I just got this above problem cleared up with the Nework that supplies my lines and IP addresses. Is this a common practice that the static IP you get from a Network Provider will reflect the Network Providers ID not yours? I guess then you have to include what you expect in your order for a line/s and IP/s. for running mail servers. Al Plant NetOpsCenter hdk5.net ##### > My mailserver sends out mail as being from lists.shepard-families.org > (in the envelope and header froms) but identifies itself as > gecko.ewd.goldmark.org > > a regular look up of either of those returns > > 72.64.118.115 > > A reverse of that turns up > > n115.ewd.goldmark.org > > which when you do a regular lookup gets you > > 72.64.118.115 > > So my machine is claiming to be in goldmark.org, and doing a reverse > lookup on its IP address points you back to goldmark.org. So that > strongly suggests that when it identifies itself as goldmark.org, it > is doing so with the consent not only of the person who controls the > goldmark.org domain, but also with the consent of the person (in this > case Verizon) who controls the IP address of the machine. > > If mail from my machine failed this IP --> name1 --> IP --> name2 --> > IP test (the test being that name1 and name2 are in the same domain > and that "IP" is the same IP throughout), then mail from my machine > would get a high spam score by most systems. > > I really don't want to sound harsh with this, but if you aren't fully > clear on concepts like reverse and forward DNS and authoritative > servers for each, you really should be looking for a solution that > doesn't involve you running a direct to MX system. You can still run > your own mailserver which you can integrate with your webserver, but > have it relay all of the outgoing mail to your ISP's SMTP host which > is set up for the purpose. > > Also if you post your queries to the postfix mailing list (I think I > recall that you were using postfix) you will probably find lots of > pointers to information explaining about configuration. "The Book of > Postfix" (ISBN 1-59327-001-1) has a good discussion of the need for > other hosts being able to reverse resolve the IP of your mail hub. > > -j > > -- ~Al Plant - Honolulu, Hawaii - Phone: 808-284-2740 + http://hawaiidakine.com + http://freebsdinfo.org + noc@hdk5.net + + http://internetohana.org - Supporting - FreeBSD 6.* - 7.* + "All that's really worth doing is what we do for others."- Lewis Carrol
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45F83D23.4020102>