[ale] mail headers question

Thu Aug 26 19:31:13 EDT 2004

Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:51, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
>>Joe Steele wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2004, Geoffrey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Geoffrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So, when you say fix Mozilla....
>>>>
>>>>It is apparently a bug in Mozilla.  I fired up 1.6 and it does not
>>>>reproduce the problem.  Lovely...
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, current behavior is the result of "fixing" a bug, so I guess it's
>>>not a bug anymore -- it's a feature.  See the following (warning:
>>>long-winded discussion spanning 3+ years):
>>>
>>>http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68877
>>
>>This is completely stupid.  The reasoning:
>>
>>You shouldn't care about NAT in my opinion: A NAT user normally has an
>>SMTP Server to send mail out, regardless of what helo/ehlo header is set.
>>
>>What kind of bullshit is that?
> 
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the sentence.
> 
> This just states that your email provider should accept your email
> regardless of the helo/ehelo string.
>>From your initial email I understand that this is the case.

My email provider is, it's mind(less)spring who's got the problem.

Further, the client should not be 'publishing' an internal ip address. 
Particularily when it is nat'd at the firewall.

> Why mindspring is refusing the email forwarded by your email
> provider is another issue.

They are claiming that it is an open relay or dynamic ip, here's the 
feedback they sent:

foobar at mindspring.com:
   550 Dynamic IPs/open relays blocked. Contact 
<openrelay at abuse.earthlink.net>.
   command : mail
   response: 550 Dynamic IPs/open relays blocked. Contact 
<openrelay at abuse.earthlink.net>.

Neither of which is correct.  It's not an open relay and it's not a 
dynamic ip.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey       Registered Linux User #108567
                             AT&T Certified UNIX System Programmer - 1995