Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 1997)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: check_mail ruleset for
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)" <help @ quality . org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 12:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: rlcarr @ MIT . EDU
Cc: list-managers-digest @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <199705141526 . PAA16195 @ sundial . MIT . EDU . MIT . EDU>

It will be accepted if you're configured to resolve on the domain name
only. It will bounce if you're configured to require a machine name +
domain name for resolution. Depends on how you've got your DNS set up.
It's not a function of the script.


On Wed, 14 May 1997 rlcarr @
 MIT .
 EDU wrote:

> What exactly is a "domain that can't be resolved"?  I'm starting to get
> worried that some anti-spam measure are going to cause email from UUCP
> hosts (like my home machine) to be rejected as spam because its return
> address is not a machine that's on the net.
> In my particular case, the hostname of my home machine is (say) homemachine.
> The domain name of my UUCP provider (which IS on the net) is (say)
> Mail to users on my home machine is addressed to user @
 homemachine .
 isp .
> and email from said users has a return address of the same thing.
> So, under anti-spam measures like the check_mail ruleset, will mail
> from my home machine be bounced because "" cannot
> be resolved (if you try to ping it you'll get "unknown host"), or will
> it be accepted because "" is a valid domain, or will it be accepted
> because my UUCP feed provides an MX record for ?
> == Rich

Indexed By Date Previous: check_mail ruleset for
From: rlcarr @ MIT . EDU
Next: Approve command in Eudora
From: Juan Leonel Navas Alfaro <juan @ nicarao . apc . org . ni>
Indexed By Thread Previous: check_mail ruleset for
From: rlcarr @ MIT . EDU
Next: Re: check_mail ruleset for
From: Brad Knowles <brad @ his . com>

Search Internet Search