Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:15:52 -0500 From: "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <kdk@daleco.biz> To: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAO Kevin Kinsey Message-ID: <3F95F668.8040808@daleco.biz> In-Reply-To: <20031021211049.GN3708@submonkey.net> References: <20031021211049.GN3708@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ceri Davies wrote: >Kevin, > >This is retarded. >Not only is your MTA rejecting mail and not saying why, but it's also doing >it for mail addressed to postmaster. > >Apologies to the rest of the list, but I'm pretty short of options... > >Ceri > >-- > > 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. > >It would be a good idea to provide some idea why the mail was blocked. >Fancy giving me a clue? > >Cheers, > >Ceri > > > You caught me slightly off guard. I get mail to "webmaster" and postmaster@daleco.biz with great frequency, as well as kdk@. 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. But, that's not even the half of it. I decided to see where you're coming from: <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 Some time ago, sick of spamming, I wrote a script that kicks addresses from which spam is received into /etc/hosts.allow. We also added some entries manually during the writing process. We caught your entire Class A. Dunno how, exactly. Lots of junk from there, I suppose?? Yeah, we need a better way. Maybe someday. Until then, shrike gets a better ranking, I suppose....... >On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:33:52AM -0500, Kevin Kinsey wrote: > > >>>Description: >>> >>> >> Examination of context clearly shows that the word "Not" should appear >> in the statement "Lists and ranges are allowed to co-exist in the >> same field...." >> >> >>>How-To-Repeat: >>> >>> >> $man 5 crontab >> # read the "Extensions" paragraph(s) >> >> > >I think you'll find that they *are* allowed (that is the nature of the extension). >Read the paragraph again, bearing in mind that you are reading about Vixie cron: > > 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 "7,8,9" > ONLY. > >i.e. this cron does allow it. > >Ceri > > > Well, thanks for the explanation. 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 know we're running "Vixie Cron", or at least that Paul V wrote it, and that such a thing exists. But this document that never mentions it, while it does mention ATT & BSD cron. 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. My apologies, in all regards. Thanks for handling the pr so quickly. Kevin Kinsey *@daleco.biz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F95F668.8040808>