How to discover my email redirection
Hi All, I currently own the domain name boms.com.au A friend in NZ is currently hosting that website for me (actually a contact of his in South America, I think). I don't know how it's done, but all mail addressed to "boms" is auto-redirected to an email account I have with my old NZ-based ISP. My pal hasn't responded to my recent request, to change that redirection to the email account I currently have with my new AU-based ISP. In the off chance that something drastic has happened to my pal: How can I "wrest control" of my email handling? Feel free to reply off-list, and/or just point me to a relevant website to RTFM. Cheers, Carl Turney Bayswater, Vic. Home 9720 3975 Mobile 0427 024 735
Hi Carl, Your domain is registered with Domain Central. Your only option in the absence of contact with your friend is to contact that registrar, prove your ownership, re-delegate the domain and get things set up elsewhere. While you are listed as the contact, presumably e-mails to that contact address will also go into limbo, so doing a password recovery on the registrar's website probably won't help you. Might be worth checking where they go though. cheers Brian Domain Name: boms.com.au Last Modified: 27-Oct-2011 22:06:06 UTC Registrar ID: Domain Central Registrar Name: Domain Central Status: ok Registrant: TURNEY, CARL WESLEY Registrant ID: ABN 59003243556 Eligibility Type: Sole Trader Registrant Contact ID: C084461-DC Registrant Contact Name: Carl Turney Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs Tech Contact ID: C084461-DC Tech Contact Name: Carl Turney Tech Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs Name Server: ns1.afraid.org Name Server: ns2.afraid.org Name Server: ns3.afraid.org Name Server: ns4.afraid.org On 27/07/2012 8:17 AM, Carl Turney wrote:
Hi All,
I currently own the domain name boms.com.au
A friend in NZ is currently hosting that website for me (actually a contact of his in South America, I think).
I don't know how it's done, but all mail addressed to "boms" is auto-redirected to an email account I have with my old NZ-based ISP.
My pal hasn't responded to my recent request, to change that redirection to the email account I currently have with my new AU-based ISP.
In the off chance that something drastic has happened to my pal:
How can I "wrest control" of my email handling?
Feel free to reply off-list, and/or just point me to a relevant website to RTFM.
Cheers,
Carl Turney Bayswater, Vic. Home 9720 3975 Mobile 0427 024 735 _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Hi, I've got the login and password for my Domain Central account, which I set up myself almost a year ago. Have updated my contact details with them. Will give it another couple days, and another couple ways, of contacting my pal back in NZ. Failing that, will change website hosting to someone local -- preferably an easily-contactable individual rather than a big company. Carl On 27/07/12 08:29, Brian Parish wrote:
Hi Carl,
Your domain is registered with Domain Central. Your only option in the absence of contact with your friend is to contact that registrar, prove your ownership, re-delegate the domain and get things set up elsewhere. While you are listed as the contact, presumably e-mails to that contact address will also go into limbo, so doing a password recovery on the registrar's website probably won't help you. Might be worth checking where they go though.
cheers Brian
Domain Name: boms.com.au Last Modified: 27-Oct-2011 22:06:06 UTC Registrar ID: Domain Central Registrar Name: Domain Central Status: ok
Registrant: TURNEY, CARL WESLEY Registrant ID: ABN 59003243556 Eligibility Type: Sole Trader
Registrant Contact ID: C084461-DC Registrant Contact Name: Carl Turney Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs
Tech Contact ID: C084461-DC Tech Contact Name: Carl Turney Tech Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs
Name Server: ns1.afraid.org Name Server: ns2.afraid.org Name Server: ns3.afraid.org Name Server: ns4.afraid.org
On 27/07/2012 8:17 AM, Carl Turney wrote:
Hi All,
I currently own the domain name boms.com.au
A friend in NZ is currently hosting that website for me (actually a contact of his in South America, I think).
I don't know how it's done, but all mail addressed to "boms" is auto-redirected to an email account I have with my old NZ-based ISP.
My pal hasn't responded to my recent request, to change that redirection to the email account I currently have with my new AU-based ISP.
In the off chance that something drastic has happened to my pal:
How can I "wrest control" of my email handling?
Feel free to reply off-list, and/or just point me to a relevant website to RTFM.
Cheers,
Carl Turney Bayswater, Vic. Home 9720 3975 Mobile 0427 024 735
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 08:17:39AM +1000, Carl Turney wrote:
I currently own the domain name boms.com.au [...] My pal hasn't responded to my recent request, to change that redirection to the email account I currently have with my new AU-based ISP.
In the off chance that something drastic has happened to my pal:
How can I "wrest control" of my email handling?
if the domain is registered in your name and you still have the login details for your domain registrar you can change the name-server delegation records to point to a server where you have control over the domain's zonefile. with that you can change the MX record to point to a mail server under your control. most registrars offer DNS hosting and (functional but basic) web-based DNS editing, usually for a small annual fee. most also offer some kind of mail forwarding feature. if your current domain registrar doesn't offer these features, then shop around - many will waive or discount the registration fee for existing domains (you've already paid it to your current registrar) just to gain you as a future on-going customer. FWIW, I use Netregistry for my domains. haven't had a problem with them. I don't use their dns or mail hosting services (i handle that on my own server), i just pay them for the domain registration and have the domain delegated to my own nameserver. http://www.netregistry.com.au I haven't used it but their Domain Manager product for $15/year seems to offer the features I described above. if you're comfortable with configuring and administering DNS and mail yourself you can probably find a virtual server with a static IP (essential for both NS and MX records) for not much more. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #239: CPU needs bearings repacked
On 27/07/12 08:46, Craig Sanders wrote:
if the domain is registered in your name and you still have the login details for your domain registrar you can change the name-server delegation records to point to a server...
So far, so good. I understand and can do.
... where you have control over the domain's zonefile. with that you can change the MX record to point to a mail server under your control.
Ah. Beyond the current limits of my understanding and ability. Looking forward to the next LUV meeting that I can attend. Hopefully someone with the knowledge level of Craig, and the patience of a primary school teacher, can coach me on the above -- face-to-face. I dislike in-depth "training by email".
most registrars offer DNS hosting and (functional but basic) web-based DNS editing, usually for a small annual fee. most also offer some kind of mail forwarding feature.
My pal in NZ is hosting my low-volume site for $50 a year (mate's rates). Which is important because I'm 59, unemployed, basically broke, and my ute rego is coming up in about a month.
if you're comfortable with configuring and administering DNS and mail yourself you can probably find a virtual server with a static IP (essential for both NS and MX records) for not much more.
The above is "over my head" too, currently. Cheers, Carl
Hi, On 27/07/2012 8:46 AM, Craig Sanders wrote:
FWIW, I use Netregistry for my domains. haven't had a problem with them. I don't use their dns or mail hosting services (i handle that on my own server), i just pay them for the domain registration and have the domain delegated to my own nameserver.
IMHO, NR screwed up with their takeover of Distribute.IT and I don't trust any of their systems to NOT spam domain contacts for domain names that I sell and manage for clients. NR now have the absolutely barest of my business through their ttp "wholesale" arm -- only those domains that I cannot purchase elsewhere. Also, NR will sell ANY joe a domain name via different branding at pricing that they won't offer to ordinary NR resellers. Long story short, don't deal with NR unless you have no other choice, it isn't worth the trouble and hassle and they don't care about you! btw I use AussieHQ, it works fine for my requirements for all the domains that they support. Cheers -- Kind Regards AndrewM
On 27/07/2012 8:46 AM, Craig Sanders wrote:
if you're comfortable with configuring and administering DNS and mail yourself you can probably find a virtual server with a static IP (essential for both NS and MX records) for not much more.
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well. Cheers -- Kind Regards AndrewM
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well.
15 years ago it was essential. Nowadays no-one cares. If you configure a mail server to reject servers without reverse DNS then you will have all the users immediately complain. If you install a server on a static IP address assigned by an ISP then you probably won't be able to install reverse DNS. My mail server hasn't had reverse DNS for years, it hasn't caused me problems. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 27/07/2012 1:26 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well. 15 years ago it was essential. Nowadays no-one cares.
If you configure a mail server to reject servers without reverse DNS then you will have all the users immediately complain.
If you install a server on a static IP address assigned by an ISP then you probably won't be able to install reverse DNS.
My mail server hasn't had reverse DNS for years, it hasn't caused me problems.
Two things are true here: 1. If you don't have reverse DNS some servers will reject you - certainly still happens to our customers now and then 2. It's not well entrenched and therefore as Russell says, setting up your own server to reject on that basis is a complaint generator So, I would suggest keeping your own house in order, but not assuming that anyone else does is (as usual) the line of least resistance. cheers Brian
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Brian Parish <bmp@sepit.com.au> wrote:
1. If you don't have reverse DNS some servers will reject you - certainly still happens to our customers now and then
Where "some" means something less than 1% of all servers and something less than 0.1% of all email addresses. I send mail to lots of people, I can't remember the last time I had a message bounce due to reverse DNS, it would be many years ago. Even when a server with thousands of accounts has a reverse DNS issue it's usually months before someone notices.
So, I would suggest keeping your own house in order, but not assuming that anyone else does is (as usual) the line of least resistance.
The definition of "in order" for modern mail servers doesn't seem to include having reverse DNS. # nc lists2.luv.asn.au. 25 220 tainted.luv.asn.au ESMTP Postfix (Nothing to see here, move along...) It's interesting to note that the name that the LUV server is configured with doesn't match the DNS name. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:31:04PM +1000, Brian Parish wrote:
So, I would suggest keeping your own house in order, but not assuming that anyone else does is (as usual) the line of least resistance.
yes. do the right thing, but don't assume that everyone else does (because they usually don't) craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Hi Russell, On 27/07/2012 1:26 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well.
15 years ago it was essential. Nowadays no-one cares.
If you configure a mail server to reject servers without reverse DNS then you will have all the users immediately complain.
If you install a server on a static IP address assigned by an ISP then you probably won't be able to install reverse DNS.
My mail server hasn't had reverse DNS for years, it hasn't caused me problems.
My experience is the exact opposite. I ran my mail server for years and never had any rDNS, then all of a sudden in a short period of time, lots of servers refused to work properly until I got my rDNS setup -- then no further problems. I do use a static IP from my ISP. So, my experience is, that you MUST absolutely have rDNS to operate a mail server and not risk other mail servers "thinking" this is not a "real" mail server, so we can ignore them. Cheers -- Kind Regards AndrewM Andrew McGlashan Broadband Solutions now including VoIP Current Land Line No: 03 9012 2102 Mobile: 04 2574 1827 Fax: 03 9012 2178 National No: 1300 85 3804 Affinity Vision Australia Pty Ltd http://www.affinityvision.com.au http://adsl2choice.net.au In Case of Emergency -- http://www.affinityvision.com.au/ice.html
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
My experience is the exact opposite. I ran my mail server for years and never had any rDNS, then all of a sudden in a short period of time, lots of servers refused to work properly until I got my rDNS setup -- then no further problems. I do use a static IP from my ISP.
So, my experience is, that you MUST absolutely have rDNS to operate a mail server and not risk other mail servers "thinking" this is not a "real" mail server, so we can ignore them.
It may be helpful to have some reverse DNS entry, but you absoltely don't need to have any sort of meaningful entry. As has been proven by the list server we are using for this discussion the SMTP protocol name doesn't need to match the reverse DNS entry. In fact this server also demonstrates that you can have multiple A records with the same IP address without a problem. If you configure a server with a reverse DNS entry like 220-245-31-42.static.tpgi.com.au. (which my mail server currently has) then you can send mail anywhere (I run a bunch of servers on cheap TPG ADSL links for small companies, I get lots of complaints about all manner of email issue but never about reverse DNS). Anyone who checks for an existing reverse DNS entry but doesn't check that it's relevant is really stupid, I'm sure that there are people who are that stupid running mail servers, but they surely wouldn't be common. There are also probably some people who blindly copy config file snippets and accidentally have their server running in such a manner. But generally DNS entries don't matter. Even if you break SPF mail will be received by the vast majority of systems. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
At 01:26 PM 7/27/2012, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well.
15 years ago it was essential. Nowadays no-one cares.
If you configure a mail server to reject servers without reverse DNS then you will have all the users immediately complain.
Yep, I have had that issue *cough* Optus *cough* Three *cough*, which used to drive me nuts, as one had no reverse DNS on its IPs, and the other only allowed sending mail via port 25, and blocked IPs with no reverse DNS. I've since dropped both offending parties, and no more mail sending hassles.
If you install a server on a static IP address assigned by an ISP then you probably won't be able to install reverse DNS.
The checking I've seen is whether the sending IP has _any_ reverse DNS (even the ISP's generic one works). Don't quite get the logic of that check, but that's the pattern I noticed. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:11:51PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 27/07/2012 8:46 AM, Craig Sanders wrote:
if you're comfortable with configuring and administering DNS and mail yourself you can probably find a virtual server with a static IP (essential for both NS and MX records) for not much more.
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well.
no-one sane rejects incoming mail based on missing or inaccurate rDNS because most of the world's reverse-dns is fucked up and can't be relied on, mostly because it's run by ISPs who allocate IPs to customers without bothering to give those customers the ability to set the reverse DNS. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 27/07/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:11:51PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 27/07/2012 8:46 AM, Craig Sanders wrote:
if you're comfortable with configuring and administering DNS and mail yourself you can probably find a virtual server with a static IP (essential for both NS and MX records) for not much more.
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well.
no-one sane rejects incoming mail based on missing or inaccurate rDNS because most of the world's reverse-dns is fucked up and can't be relied on, mostly because it's run by ISPs who allocate IPs to customers without bothering to give those customers the ability to set the reverse DNS.
It was DEFINITELY the case for me that mail was rejected due to a generic rDNS -- once I got a proper rDNS, everything has been fine since then (immediately). It's clear we've had different experiences. In any case, rDNS is so cheap and easy to do, it is well worth doing. If your ISP cannot support a reasonable process to setup rDNS, then change ISPs. Period. Thanks. -- Kind Regards AndrewM Andrew McGlashan Broadband Solutions now including VoIP Current Land Line No: 03 9012 2102 Mobile: 04 2574 1827 Fax: 03 9012 2178 National No: 1300 85 3804 Affinity Vision Australia Pty Ltd http://www.affinityvision.com.au http://adsl2choice.net.au In Case of Emergency -- http://www.affinityvision.com.au/ice.html
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
On 27/07/2012 8:46 AM, Craig Sanders wrote:
if you're comfortable with configuring and administering DNS and mail yourself you can probably find a virtual server with a static IP (essential for both NS and MX records) for not much more.
These days it is also essential that mail servers have a suitable reverse DNS (rDNS) entry as well.
It remains pragmatically useful for SMTP deliverability to have the MTA host's rDNS resolve to something valid. However, a few moments' thought will suggest why having rDNS exactly match forward lookup may be desirable but cannot ever become overwhelmingly important: because an IP can reverse to only one of potentially a myriad of forward A records. $ dig -t a linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -x 198.144.195.186 +short linuxmafia.COM. $ So far, so good, nei? However: $ dig -t a uncle-enzo.linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a enzo.linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a mail.linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a www.linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ftp.linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ns.linuxmafia.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ns3.svlug.org. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a substancez.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a www.substancez.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a mail.substancez.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ftp.substancez.com. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a substancez.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a www.substancez.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a mail.substancez.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ftp.substancez.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a substancez.org. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a www.substancez.org. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a mail.substancez.org. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ftp.substancez.org. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ns3.svlug.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a unixmercenary.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ns1.unixmercenary.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a www.unixmercenary.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ns1.unixmercenary.net. +short 198.144.195.186 $ dig -t a ftp.unixmercenary.net. +short 198.144.195.186 As they said in the movie, there can be only one. -- Cheers, "Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moen so I lit his beard on fire." -- Kelly Oxford rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:33:53PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
because an IP can reverse to only one of potentially a myriad of forward A records.
that's not actually true. you can have as many PTR records as you like for a given rDNS entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup#Multiple_pointer_records Whether that's actually useful or not is another matter (in some cases it is, in most it is not), and it's definitely not recommended. "don't do it" is a reasonably good rule of thumb here. "don't do it unless you know what you're doing and why" is even better.
[...] As they said in the movie, there can be only one.
unless you have more. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
that's not actually true. you can have as many PTR records as you like for a given rDNS entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup#Multiple_pointer_records
Whether that's actually useful or not is another matter (in some cases it is, in most it is not), and it's definitely not recommended.
How many of the systems which refuse mail from servers that don't have "valid" reverse DNS would accept mail from a system with multiple reverse DNS records? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:31:20PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
How many of the systems which refuse mail from servers that don't have "valid" reverse DNS would accept mail from a system with multiple reverse DNS records?
exactly 41.333333333 (one is only on 8h/day) craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
that's not actually true. you can have as many PTR records as you like for a given rDNS entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup#Multiple_pointer_records
Oh very well, yes, you can do that, but That Would Be Extremely Dumb, for various fairly obvious reasons -- and, more to the immediate point, would completely and automatically bollix any aim to resolve to any specific hostname to make some hypothetical MTA happy.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:35:35PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
that's not actually true. you can have as many PTR records as you like for a given rDNS entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup#Multiple_pointer_records
Oh very well, yes, you can do that, but That Would Be Extremely Dumb,
actually, no. it would not Be Extremely Dumb. Having multiple PTR records for an IP address is a valid and occasionally useful DNS configuration.
for various fairly obvious reasons
which don't strike me as being particularly obvious.
-- and, more to the immediate point, would completely and automatically bollix any aim to resolve to any specific hostname to make some hypothetical MTA happy.
it's *entirely* the MTA's fault if it freaks out over perfectly valid DNS configuration. configuring an MTA to require matching rDNS resolution is Extremely Dumb in most situations (i.e. where you aren't doing something like restricting incoming smtp connections to a set of known hosts - and there are *much better* methods available for doing that. SSL/TLS client certificate checking for example). craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #rm268: # modprobe omniscience FATAL: Module omniscience not found.
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, no. it would not Be Extremely Dumb. Having multiple PTR records for an IP address is a valid and occasionally useful DNS configuration.
Please do describe examples for an MTA host.
for various fairly obvious reasons
which don't strike me as being particularly obvious.
You'll just have to work that out, then.
-- and, more to the immediate point, would completely and automatically bollix any aim to resolve to any specific hostname to make some hypothetical MTA happy.
it's *entirely* the MTA's fault if it freaks out over perfectly valid DNS configuration.
Funny thing about system administration. When the object is to deliver mail, saying some problem is a remote MTA's 'fault' doesn't actually induce delivery.
configuring an MTA to require matching rDNS resolution is Extremely Dumb in most situations
Agreed. But not relevant.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:50:36PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, no. it would not Be Extremely Dumb. Having multiple PTR records for an IP address is a valid and occasionally useful DNS configuration.
Please do describe examples for an MTA host.
please do it yourself. I really have no interest in getting into yet another round of you insisting that you can never be wrong. you're human. even you can occasionally be wrong. sad, but true. learn to deal with this unfortunate fact with some grace and dignity.
-- and, more to the immediate point, would completely and automatically bollix any aim to resolve to any specific hostname to make some hypothetical MTA happy.
it's *entirely* the MTA's fault if it freaks out over perfectly valid DNS configuration.
Funny thing about system administration. When the object is to deliver mail, saying some problem is a remote MTA's 'fault' doesn't actually induce delivery.
funny thing about broken MTAs - they don't induce delivery either.
configuring an MTA to require matching rDNS resolution is Extremely Dumb in most situations
Agreed. But not relevant.
entirely relevant. broken is broken. expecting the rest of the world to adapt to intransigent broken-ness is completely unreasonable. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:50:36PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, no. it would not Be Extremely Dumb. Having multiple PTR records for an IP address is a valid and occasionally useful DNS configuration. Please do describe examples for an MTA host. please do it yourself. I really have no interest in getting into yet another round of you insisting that you can never be wrong. As a bystander who reveres the contribution that Rick and Craig make to luv-main and luv-talk; I wonder if I can recommend the approach to conflict found implicit in an institution like the Existentialist Society, lecture forum; where irreconcilable theories, stand-points and values are the norm. Surely there is wisdom in " agreeing to disagree'; even if the price is greater formality. ?
regards Rohan McLeod
Quoting Rohan McLeod (rhn@jeack.com.au):
Surely there is wisdom in " agreeing to disagree'; even if the price is greater formality. ?
Works for me, though barraging the mailing list with irrelevant and basically useless quibbles about how 'Well, you actually _can_ point an IP to multiple FQDNs' doesn't seem really useful, offhand.
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Rohan McLeod (rhn@jeack.com.au):
Surely there is wisdom in " agreeing to disagree'; even if the price is greater formality. ?
Works for me, though barraging the mailing list with irrelevant and basically useless quibbles about how 'Well, you actually _can_ point an IP to multiple FQDNs' doesn't seem really useful, offhand.
i didn't "barrage the list with irrelevant quibbles". the fact is that you're the one who was quibbling - you made a mistake and kept coming up with lame arguments trying to prove that it wasn't. YOU said "because an IP can reverse to only one [...] " That *IS* factually incorrect, contradicts numerous examples in documentation and on the net, and would lead to confusion and misunderstanding if left uncorrected. YOU could have left it at that - it is, after all, a minor mistake and NO BIG DEAL TO BE CORRECTED OVER. you seemed to have done that at first but then decided to start quibbling a few days later. like i said, you're human. like everyone else you'll occasionally make mistakes. it's no big deal. learn to deal with it. brow-beating anyone who dares to correct one of your mistakes is neither gracious nor dignified. in fact, it's tedious, tiresome, and obnoxious. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Hi, Craig. Please have a great day and weekend. I wish you well. -- Cheers, Rick Moen Linux for Intel: Party like it's 2037! rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80)
Carl Turney wrote:
Hi All,
I currently own the domain name boms.com.au
A friend in NZ is currently hosting that website for me (actually a contact of his in South America, I think).
I don't know how it's done, but all mail addressed to "boms" is auto-redirected to an email account I have with my old NZ-based ISP. I am wondering if it is somewhat related to my situation; jeack.com.au was taken over by hotkey.net.au, many years ago. Partly for consistency, partly for simplicity and partly for sentimentality I have retained the jeack address. My understanding is that 'rhn@jeack.com.au', nowadays is actually an alias for 'rhn1@hotkey.net.au' . So presumably hotkey now owns the domain name 'jeack.com.au' ? Such is the mutable nature of companies and their ownership structures; Hotkey is now owned by iPrimus(Aust) , until recently the Australian subsidiary of iPrimus (US); iPrimus (Aust) has recently been sold to an Australian company M2.... and so it goes ! Perhaps as the domain name owner you merely have to host it somewhere else ?; I must admit I am quite curious to hear from the many on LUV; much more knowledgeable in such matters than me ; regards Rohan McLeod
On 27/07/2012 8:57 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Carl Turney wrote:
Hi All,
I currently own the domain name boms.com.au
A friend in NZ is currently hosting that website for me (actually a contact of his in South America, I think).
I don't know how it's done, but all mail addressed to "boms" is auto-redirected to an email account I have with my old NZ-based ISP. I am wondering if it is somewhat related to my situation; jeack.com.au was taken over by hotkey.net.au, many years ago. Partly for consistency, partly for simplicity and partly for sentimentality I have retained the jeack address. My understanding is that 'rhn@jeack.com.au', nowadays is actually an alias for 'rhn1@hotkey.net.au' . So presumably hotkey now owns the domain name 'jeack.com.au' ? Such is the mutable nature of companies and their ownership structures; Hotkey is now owned by iPrimus(Aust) , until recently the Australian subsidiary of iPrimus (US); iPrimus (Aust) has recently been sold to an Australian company M2.... and so it goes ! Perhaps as the domain name owner you merely have to host it somewhere else ?; I must admit I am quite curious to hear from the many on LUV; much more knowledgeable in such matters than me ; regards Rohan McLeod
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Domain Name: jeack.com.au Last Modified: 18-Jul-2011 03:19:14 UTC Registrar ID: PlanetDomain Registrar Name: PlanetDomain Status: ok Registrant: Jeack Pty. Ltd. Registrant ID: OTHER N/A Eligibility Type: Other Registrant Contact ID: ID00017355-PR Registrant Contact Name: Hotkey Owned Domain Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs Tech Contact ID: ID00017355-PR Tech Contact Name: Hotkey Owned Domain Tech Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs Name Server: wallace.hotkey.net.au Name Server IP: 202.138.0.18 Name Server: gromit.hotkey.net.au Name Server IP: 202.138.0.11
Brian Parish wrote:
On 27/07/2012 8:57 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Domain Name: jeack.com.au Last Modified: 18-Jul-2011 03:19:14 UTC Registrar ID: PlanetDomain Registrar Name: PlanetDomain Status: ok
Registrant: Jeack Pty. Ltd. Registrant ID: OTHER N/A Eligibility Type: Other
Registrant Contact ID: ID00017355-PR Registrant Contact Name: Hotkey Owned Domain Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs
Tech Contact ID: ID00017355-PR Tech Contact Name: Hotkey Owned Domain Tech Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs
Name Server: wallace.hotkey.net.au Name Server IP: 202.138.0.18 Name Server: gromit.hotkey.net.au Name Server IP: 202.138.0.11 So 'jeack.com.au' still exists as a domain, it is not merely an alias for rhn1@hotkey .net .au ? ; thanks for the info( whois.ausregistry.com.au ) by the way, regards Rohan McLeod
On 27/07/2012 9:09 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Brian Parish wrote:
On 27/07/2012 8:57 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Domain Name: jeack.com.au Last Modified: 18-Jul-2011 03:19:14 UTC Registrar ID: PlanetDomain Registrar Name: PlanetDomain Status: ok
Registrant: Jeack Pty. Ltd. Registrant ID: OTHER N/A Eligibility Type: Other
Registrant Contact ID: ID00017355-PR Registrant Contact Name: Hotkey Owned Domain Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs
Tech Contact ID: ID00017355-PR Tech Contact Name: Hotkey Owned Domain Tech Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs
Name Server: wallace.hotkey.net.au Name Server IP: 202.138.0.18 Name Server: gromit.hotkey.net.au Name Server IP: 202.138.0.11 So 'jeack.com.au' still exists as a domain, it is not merely an alias for rhn1@hotkey .net .au ? ; thanks for the info( whois.ausregistry.com.au ) by the way, regards Rohan McLeod
luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Sure does, but as the contacts are pointing at Hotkey and as was noted elsewhere, the company no longer appears to exist, the domain would appear to be in limbo as far as exerting any control over it. cheers Brian
So 'jeack.com.au' still exists as a domain, it is not merely an alias for rhn1@hotkey .net .au ? ; thanks for the info( whois.ausregistry.com.au ) by the way, regards Rohan McLeod
Sure does, but as the contacts are pointing at Hotkey and as was noted elsewhere, the company no longer appears to exist, the domain would appear to be in limbo as far as exerting any control over it.
cheers Brian When you say 'in limbo', I take it you are referring to the fact that the registrant is still shown as Jeack Pty Ltd; a company taken over by Hotkey Pty Ltd and presumably no longer in existence. Do you think the fact that the registrant has not been updated to Hotkey is just slackness on Hotkey's part; or reflects some convention of commercial law ? I suppose the basis for this question is that I am quite attached to the address and should Hotkey just announce one day that it is no longer available; is there anything I could do about it ? regards Rohan McLeod
On 27/07/2012 9:56 AM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
So 'jeack.com.au' still exists as a domain, it is not merely an alias for rhn1@hotkey .net .au ? ; thanks for the info( whois.ausregistry.com.au ) by the way, regards Rohan McLeod
Sure does, but as the contacts are pointing at Hotkey and as was noted elsewhere, the company no longer appears to exist, the domain would appear to be in limbo as far as exerting any control over it.
cheers Brian When you say 'in limbo', I take it you are referring to the fact that the registrant is still shown as Jeack Pty Ltd; a company taken over by Hotkey Pty Ltd and presumably no longer in existence. Do you think the fact that the registrant has not been updated to Hotkey is just slackness on Hotkey's part; or reflects some convention of commercial law ? I suppose the basis for this question is that I am quite attached to the address and should Hotkey just announce one day that it is no longer available; is there anything I could do about it ? regards Rohan McLeod
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Well as the .com.au name space is regulated such that there is ** supposed ** to be a commercially registered entity with an identical or at least obviously related name associated with domains, the fact that Jeack no longer exists would seem to forfeit the right to that domain. Practically however, I suspect there is no mechanism to pick that up and as long as the domain is renewed and the entity renewing it asserts that right to renew it, nobody is likely to notice. Whether you personally can exert any control over the domain however would seem to depend entirely on Hotkey. cheers Brian
On 27/07/2012 10:07 AM, Brian Parish wrote:
Well as the .com.au name space is regulated such that there is ** supposed ** to be a commercially registered entity with an identical or at least obviously related name associated with domains, the fact that Jeack no longer exists would seem to forfeit the right to that domain. Practically however, I suspect there is no mechanism to pick that up and as long as the domain is renewed and the entity renewing it asserts that right to renew it, nobody is likely to notice. Whether you personally can exert any control over the domain however would seem to depend entirely on Hotkey.
It can also be a brand or product that you sell and there is no reason why Jeack can't be based on a product being sold. Cheers -- Kind Regards AndrewM
Rohan McLeod wrote:
Domain Name: jeack.com.au
For the OP -- this information came from the whois database, which you query like "whois example.net".
So 'jeack.com.au' still exists as a domain, it is not merely an alias for rhn1@hotkey .net .au ?
You can "alias" www.example.net to chartreuse.example.net -- that is called a CNAME DNS RR. IIRC you can only CNAME within a domain, e.g. you can alias www.example.net to chartreuse.example.net, but not to google.com or www.chartreuse.example.net. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNAME In any case, jeack.com.au still needs to exist as a domain for your old email address to work, even if mail to foo@jeack.com.au is actually handled elsewhere. In this case, you can see it quite clearly: $ dig mx jeack.com.au +short 5 vscan.hotkey.net.au. Which tells MTAs that if they have mail for foo@jeack.com.au, they should pass it on to vscan.hotkey.net.au.
Trent W. Buck wrote:
You can "alias" www.example.net to chartreuse.example.net -- that is called a CNAME DNS RR. IIRC you can only CNAME within a domain, e.g. you can alias www.example.net to chartreuse.example.net, but not to google.com or www.chartreuse.example.net.
Er, sorry, I appear to be smoking crack. The WP page explicitly contradicts me: The canonical name that a CNAME record points to can be anywhere in the DNS, whether local or on a remote server in a different DNS zone.
At 12:09 PM 7/27/2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Trent W. Buck wrote:
You can "alias" www.example.net to chartreuse.example.net -- that is called a CNAME DNS RR. IIRC you can only CNAME within a domain, e.g. you can alias www.example.net to chartreuse.example.net, but not to google.com or www.chartreuse.example.net.
Er, sorry, I appear to be smoking crack. The WP page explicitly contradicts me:
The canonical name that a CNAME record points to can be anywhere in the DNS, whether local or on a remote server in a different DNS zone.
I was going to say! I've set CNAME records to all sorts of places, for example, http://ref9550.vkradio.com points to a location in Google Sites (it's a page of mine, in case you're wondering). However, you can't point an MX record to a CNAME, only an A (and/or AAAA for IPv6 capable MXs). 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Tony Langdon <vk3jed@gmail.com> wrote:
wondering). However, you can't point an MX record to a CNAME, only an A (and/or AAAA for IPv6 capable MXs).
http://doc.coker.com.au/papers/benchmarking-mail-relays-and-forwarders/ Unfortunately you can do that and it seems to work. It probably fails in corner cases and causes extra DNS work which is a bad thing. My above paper on benchmarking DNS and mail servers is relevant. While CPU performance has increased a lot since 2006 the general principle still applies. Although admittedly systems which don't use SSD and a filesystem like ZFS are probably more likely to hit storage bottlenecks now than they were 6 years ago. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:34:58PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Tony Langdon <vk3jed@gmail.com> wrote:
wondering). However, you can't point an MX record to a CNAME, only an A (and/or AAAA for IPv6 capable MXs).
http://doc.coker.com.au/papers/benchmarking-mail-relays-and-forwarders/
Unfortunately you can do that and it seems to work.
some resolvers support it but it's explicitly documented not just as "undefined behaviour" but as something that you shouldn't do, same as pointing an MX at dotted-quad IP address will work with some resolvers but is prohibited by the standard. relying on the non-standard behaviour of some resolvers is a bad idea. it breaks your domain for everyone who doesn't use that (or similarly forgiving) resolver. as well as RFCs 1123, 2181, and related RFCs there are numerous resources on the net documenting this. Here's the first few hits from google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNAME_record#Restrictions http://exchangepedia.com/blog/2006/12/should-mx-record-point-to-cname-record... http://serverfault.com/questions/81402/can-you-reference-a-cname-record-in-a...
It probably fails in corner cases and causes extra DNS work which is a bad thing.
it's more correct to say "it might work in some corner cases but don't do it". craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
At 12:34 PM 7/27/2012, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Tony Langdon <vk3jed@gmail.com> wrote:
wondering). However, you can't point an MX record to a CNAME, only an A (and/or AAAA for IPv6 capable MXs).
http://doc.coker.com.au/papers/benchmarking-mail-relays-and-forwarders/
Unfortunately you can do that and it seems to work. It probably fails in corner cases and causes extra DNS work which is a bad thing. My above paper on benchmarking DNS and mail servers is relevant. While CPU performance has increased a lot since 2006 the general principle still applies. Although admittedly systems which don't use SSD and a filesystem like ZFS are probably more likely to hit storage bottlenecks now than they were 6 years ago.
Well, you're not _supposed_ to be able to do it, to stick to the RFCs, at least last time I had a read. :) 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Tony Langdon <vk3jed@gmail.com> wrote:
http://doc.coker.com.au/papers/benchmarking-mail-relays-and-forwarders/
Unfortunately you can do that and it seems to work. It probably fails in corner cases and causes extra DNS work which is a bad thing. My above paper on benchmarking DNS and mail servers is relevant. While CPU performance has increased a lot since 2006 the general principle still applies. Although admittedly systems which don't use SSD and a filesystem like ZFS are probably more likely to hit storage bottlenecks now than they were 6 years ago.
Well, you're not supposed to be able to do it, to stick to the RFCs, at least last time I had a read. :)
I'm not recommending doing it, in fact I've shown that there are performance implications that you probably don't want. But it has appeared to work in the past which is unfortunate. If it just stopped working then people would stop doing it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
At 04:31 PM 7/27/2012, Russell Coker wrote:
I'm not recommending doing it, in fact I've shown that there are performance implications that you probably don't want.
But it has appeared to work in the past which is unfortunate. If it just stopped working then people would stop doing it.
If software enforced the parts of the RFCs that said "Don't do this", then it would stop working, and we'd all be happy (except those who were doing silly things :D ). 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
participants (9)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Brian Parish -
Carl Turney -
Craig Sanders -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tony Langdon -
Trent W. Buck