Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sendmail -> Sending directly
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve
Apr 27, 2012, 3:57:06 AM4/27/12
to
Hi Again,
Following my previous question : Question on "Mail Queue" and "sending"
I would love to send email DIRECTLY, without using my email server's
provider. I tried, but emails canot reach the destination..
and we are using our own DNS server....
If I have a look on IntoDNS ( http://www.intodns.com/ )
I can see that only ONE part is "red".. which is the : " Reverse MX A
record", which is not correcly confirgured.
- Do you think that this could be the problem of sending email in direct ???
- or do you think that this issue wouldn't be the "reverse MX A record" ?
Our Internet provider doesn't block the port 25
2) Let suppose that our provider block the port 25. and I decide to listen
to the port 26
May I have receive emails ? Any sender will send to the port 25 so, I should
receive nothing.. is that correct ?
thanks
Following my previous question : Question on "Mail Queue" and "sending"
I would love to send email DIRECTLY, without using my email server's
provider. I tried, but emails canot reach the destination..
and we are using our own DNS server....
If I have a look on IntoDNS ( http://www.intodns.com/ )
I can see that only ONE part is "red".. which is the : " Reverse MX A
record", which is not correcly confirgured.
- Do you think that this could be the problem of sending email in direct ???
- or do you think that this issue wouldn't be the "reverse MX A record" ?
Our Internet provider doesn't block the port 25
2) Let suppose that our provider block the port 25. and I decide to listen
to the port 26
May I have receive emails ? Any sender will send to the port 25 so, I should
receive nothing.. is that correct ?
thanks
Robert Bonomi
Apr 27, 2012, 11:11:25 PM4/27/12
to
In article <4f9a5153$0$13188$426a...@news.free.fr>,
But *WHICH* horse? Small differences are _important_."
-- Lazarus Long (as recorded by R.A.H.)
You don't provide enough _detailed_ information for anyone to provide
useful/constructive answers to your questions.
>I would love to send email DIRECTLY, without using my email server's
>provider. I tried, but emails canot reach the destination..
>and we are using our own DNS server....
>
>If I have a look on IntoDNS ( http://www.intodns.com/ )
>I can see that only ONE part is "red".. which is the : " Reverse MX A
>record", which is not correcly confirgured.
>
>- Do you think that this could be the problem of sending email in direct ???
>- or do you think that this issue wouldn't be the "reverse MX A record" ?
"Yes." one of the above.
>
>Our Internet provider doesn't block the port 25
>
>2) Let suppose that our provider block the port 25. and I decide to listen
>to the port 26
>May I have receive emails ?
If you do things wrong, they will *NOT* work.
If your provider blocks -outgoing- 'port 25', that does *NOT*NECESSARILY*
mean that they block -incoming- 'port 25'.
It is entirely possible to receive on port 25, while being unable to send
to somebody else's port 26.
> Any sender will send to the port 25 so, I should
>receive nothing.. is that correct ?
You do appear to have a vague grasp of the concept that if you do things
the wrong way that they will not work.
Steve <nor...@crap.com> wrote:
>Hi Again,
>
>Following my previous question : Question on "Mail Queue" and "sending"
"It is well known that one horse can run faster than another.
>Hi Again,
>
>Following my previous question : Question on "Mail Queue" and "sending"
But *WHICH* horse? Small differences are _important_."
-- Lazarus Long (as recorded by R.A.H.)
You don't provide enough _detailed_ information for anyone to provide
useful/constructive answers to your questions.
>I would love to send email DIRECTLY, without using my email server's
>provider. I tried, but emails canot reach the destination..
>and we are using our own DNS server....
>
>If I have a look on IntoDNS ( http://www.intodns.com/ )
>I can see that only ONE part is "red".. which is the : " Reverse MX A
>record", which is not correcly confirgured.
>
>- Do you think that this could be the problem of sending email in direct ???
>- or do you think that this issue wouldn't be the "reverse MX A record" ?
>
>Our Internet provider doesn't block the port 25
>
>2) Let suppose that our provider block the port 25. and I decide to listen
>to the port 26
>May I have receive emails ?
If your provider blocks -outgoing- 'port 25', that does *NOT*NECESSARILY*
mean that they block -incoming- 'port 25'.
It is entirely possible to receive on port 25, while being unable to send
to somebody else's port 26.
> Any sender will send to the port 25 so, I should
>receive nothing.. is that correct ?
the wrong way that they will not work.
Steve
Apr 30, 2012, 2:49:56 AM4/30/12
to
Hi Robert,
The problem is that I have no idea what can be the problem and I don't know
where to look for...
Today, our email server is using our ISP email server... [
define(`SMART_HOST', `smtp.example.com')dnl ]
But I would really prefer to deliver directly WITHOUT using the server of
somebodyelse.
So, I tried to do a direct delivery. but that didn't work and I don't know
why....emails are coming back, saying that it couldn't delivered from the
adress IP....etc....
If Sendmail can deliver properly, using the ISP email server, it should be
OK to deliver directly..( I guess )
I suppose, that this is a (Sendmail+DNS) problem...
That's why I asked the question whether the Reverse MX record could be a
problem... because except that... I have no idea of what could be the
problem using Sendmail that way
I've made some research on DNS problem...( for sending emails .. ) but at
the moment, I didn't find any way to modify my own Reverse MX record... ( in
that case, I understand that I need also to go to a DNS Newsgroup.
The problem is that I have no idea what can be the problem and I don't know
where to look for...
Today, our email server is using our ISP email server... [
define(`SMART_HOST', `smtp.example.com')dnl ]
But I would really prefer to deliver directly WITHOUT using the server of
somebodyelse.
So, I tried to do a direct delivery. but that didn't work and I don't know
why....emails are coming back, saying that it couldn't delivered from the
adress IP....etc....
If Sendmail can deliver properly, using the ISP email server, it should be
OK to deliver directly..( I guess )
I suppose, that this is a (Sendmail+DNS) problem...
That's why I asked the question whether the Reverse MX record could be a
problem... because except that... I have no idea of what could be the
problem using Sendmail that way
I've made some research on DNS problem...( for sending emails .. ) but at
the moment, I didn't find any way to modify my own Reverse MX record... ( in
that case, I understand that I need also to go to a DNS Newsgroup.
Robert Bonomi
May 2, 2012, 6:22:25 AM5/2/12
to
In article <4f9e3615$0$6134$426a...@news.free.fr>,
"It is well known that one horse can run faster than another.
But *WHICH* horse? Small differences are _important_."
-- Lazarus Long (as recorded by R.A.H.)
You don't provide enough _detailed_ information for anyone to provide
useful/constructive answers to your questions.
*WHAT* those error messages say is critical.
It is also possible that your ISP does -not- allow you to send email
'directly'. On many types of 'residential' service, this *IS* normally
the case. It prevents end-user machines that have been compromised,
and are 'owned' by hackers, part of a 'botnet', from sending massive
amounts of 'spam' from the ISP's network.
If that is the case, it _may_ be possible to request an exemption from
the 'general' blocking. Depends on your ISP's policies, and the type
of service you have.
>If Sendmail can deliver properly, using the ISP email server, it should be
>OK to deliver directly..( I guess )
'not necessarily', see above.
>I suppose, that this is a (Sendmail+DNS) problem...
>
>That's why I asked the question whether the Reverse MX record could be a
>problem... because except that... I have no idea of what could be the
>problem using Sendmail that way
"Possible" with _some_ badly-configured, small, sites. *EXTREMELY*UNLIKELY*
if it is happening with 'everything' sent to major providers.
>I've made some research on DNS problem...( for sending emails .. ) but at
>the moment, I didn't find any way to modify my own Reverse MX record... ( in
>that case, I understand that I need also to go to a DNS Newsgroup.
_First_ you need to eliminate other possible causations.
Start with some _exact_ error messages. Ignore anything that says
'this is a warning message only'.
'Reply' to this message, from inside your newsreader, =with= a valid
email address, and I'll provide some more specific testing you can do.
Aside: reverse DNS is a whole separate hierarchy from regular DNS. To
get a rDNS record changed, you have to contact the owner of the 'parent'
reverse block, and either get them to change it in -their- records, or
to 'delegate' that piece of their rDNS space to 'your' public DNS server.
The 'owner' of the rDNS block, may, or may =not= be willing to do either
of those things.
*Generally* a rDNS check on an IP address is to do a 'reverse' look-up
on the address to get a 'name', and then do a 'forward' look up on that
name to see if it returns the _same_ address.
A 'verification check' on a hostname is to do a look-up on the name, to
get the address, then to to the above-described check on that address.
It is *not* expected/required in this situation that the 'starting' hostname
is the -same- as the hostname returned by the rDNS check. Lots of
machines have *MANY* names that map to that address (virtual hosting,
virtual domains, etc., etc.), but there should be only -one- 'canonical'
name for the hardware, which should have it's own forward record, AND
is what is found in the rDNS record.
Steve <nor...@crap.com> wrote:
>Hi Robert,
>
>The problem is that I have no idea what can be the problem and I don't know
>where to look for...
>
>
>Today, our email server is using our ISP email server... [
>define(`SMART_HOST', `smtp.example.com')dnl ]
>
>But I would really prefer to deliver directly WITHOUT using the server of
>somebodyelse.
>So, I tried to do a direct delivery. but that didn't work and I don't know
>why....emails are coming back, saying that it couldn't delivered from the
>adress IP....etc....
I hate to repeat myself, but..
>Hi Robert,
>
>The problem is that I have no idea what can be the problem and I don't know
>where to look for...
>
>
>Today, our email server is using our ISP email server... [
>define(`SMART_HOST', `smtp.example.com')dnl ]
>
>But I would really prefer to deliver directly WITHOUT using the server of
>somebodyelse.
>So, I tried to do a direct delivery. but that didn't work and I don't know
>why....emails are coming back, saying that it couldn't delivered from the
>adress IP....etc....
"It is well known that one horse can run faster than another.
But *WHICH* horse? Small differences are _important_."
-- Lazarus Long (as recorded by R.A.H.)
You don't provide enough _detailed_ information for anyone to provide
useful/constructive answers to your questions.
It is also possible that your ISP does -not- allow you to send email
'directly'. On many types of 'residential' service, this *IS* normally
the case. It prevents end-user machines that have been compromised,
and are 'owned' by hackers, part of a 'botnet', from sending massive
amounts of 'spam' from the ISP's network.
If that is the case, it _may_ be possible to request an exemption from
the 'general' blocking. Depends on your ISP's policies, and the type
of service you have.
>If Sendmail can deliver properly, using the ISP email server, it should be
>OK to deliver directly..( I guess )
>I suppose, that this is a (Sendmail+DNS) problem...
>
>That's why I asked the question whether the Reverse MX record could be a
>problem... because except that... I have no idea of what could be the
>problem using Sendmail that way
if it is happening with 'everything' sent to major providers.
>I've made some research on DNS problem...( for sending emails .. ) but at
>the moment, I didn't find any way to modify my own Reverse MX record... ( in
>that case, I understand that I need also to go to a DNS Newsgroup.
Start with some _exact_ error messages. Ignore anything that says
'this is a warning message only'.
'Reply' to this message, from inside your newsreader, =with= a valid
email address, and I'll provide some more specific testing you can do.
Aside: reverse DNS is a whole separate hierarchy from regular DNS. To
get a rDNS record changed, you have to contact the owner of the 'parent'
reverse block, and either get them to change it in -their- records, or
to 'delegate' that piece of their rDNS space to 'your' public DNS server.
The 'owner' of the rDNS block, may, or may =not= be willing to do either
of those things.
*Generally* a rDNS check on an IP address is to do a 'reverse' look-up
on the address to get a 'name', and then do a 'forward' look up on that
name to see if it returns the _same_ address.
A 'verification check' on a hostname is to do a look-up on the name, to
get the address, then to to the above-described check on that address.
It is *not* expected/required in this situation that the 'starting' hostname
is the -same- as the hostname returned by the rDNS check. Lots of
machines have *MANY* names that map to that address (virtual hosting,
virtual domains, etc., etc.), but there should be only -one- 'canonical'
name for the hardware, which should have it's own forward record, AND
is what is found in the rDNS record.
0 new messages