On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:23:27 +0100 (BST), M A Young wrote: > > > This may mean the last mail server your mail passes through > > > before it > > > tries to get to a redhat server is unregistered, or is registered > > > in some way that upsets the redhat server. It would be useful to > > > see the headers on the bounced message and especially the > > > "Received:" ones. > > > > No, it's a get-host-by-name lookup as demonstrated in my message > > from "Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:06:46 +0200" (Message-Id: > > <20021016130646.0b863573.rh0210ms@arcor.de> ). > > I agree having seen that message that my suspicions were wrong, but > if I > understand your conclusion correctly; that dsl.pipex.com should have > an A record as well as an MX record, then I disagree, because it would > mean that I would be unable to post to this list, and clearly I can. Well, I didn't say that. For receiving mail it needs either an A record _or_ an MX record. When it has no A record, it can receive mail only if it has an MX record. We (erhm, *I*) don't know what the true reason is for mx1.redhat.com to reject mail from @dsl.pipex.com. I can only verify that it doesn't like sender addresses @dsl.pipex.com _and_ that it decides to reject mail from @dsl.pipex.com based on either a DNS lookup or a blacklist. $ telnet mx1.redhat.com smtp [...] 250 2.1.0 m.a.young@durham.ac.uk... Sender ok quit Hmmm, I see. But you have plenty of relay hosts between you and mx1.redhat.com. Maybe that makes a difference. We should really see what postmaster@redhat.com has to say about this... --
Attachment:
pgp00216.pgp
Description: PGP signature
