Re: Website link for 38.160.176.2

Hi Najmul.

On 07/09/05 23:00, Najmul Khan wrote:

> HI Alexey, I did the test again and see the result below and don't see any
> hardware problems?
> 
> MX-VERIFY-CGI run for ``icic.org''

This test does not belong to DSBL, and (seems) it does not check the
necessary things. Instead, I made a direct test from my home machine; it
seems to be self-explaining.

gw:/home/aal# echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
gw:/home/aal# telnet  mail.icic.org 25
Trying 38.160.176.2...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection timed out
gw:/home/aal# echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
gw:/home/aal# telnet  mail.icic.org 25
Trying 38.160.176.2...
Connected to mail.icic.org.
220 ICIC_2004.icic.bos Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version:
5.0.2195.6713 ready at  Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:09:10 -0400

Alexey


> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Doing resolver lookup for T=MX domain=``icic.org''
> 
> DNS yields following MX entries 
>   icic.org  (1620s) IN MX  10 mail.icic.org
> 
> 
> Only one MX record... 
> Well, no backups, but as all systems are looking for MX record in every
> case, not bad..
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Testing MX server: mail.icic.org
> Address lookup did yield following ones: 
> 
> 
>   IPv4 38.160.176.2
> 
> 
> Testing server at address: IPv4 38.160.176.2
> [ CONNECTED! ]
> 
> 
>  220 ICIC_2004.icic.bos Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version: 5.0.2195.6713
> ready at  Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:56:59 -0400 
>  EHLO vger.kernel.org
>  250-ICIC_2004.icic.bos Hello [209.132.176.167]
>  250-TURN
>  250-ATRN
>  250-SIZE
>  250-ETRN
>  250-PIPELINING
>  250-DSN
>  250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
>  250-8bitmime
>  250-BINARYMIME
>  250-CHUNKING
>  250-VRFY
>  250-X-EXPS GSSAPI NTLM LOGIN
>  250-X-EXPS=LOGIN
>  250-AUTH GSSAPI NTLM LOGIN
>  250-AUTH=LOGIN
>  250-X-LINK2STATE
>  250-XEXCH50
>  250 OK
> 
> 
> Excellent! It speaks ESMTP!
> 
>  MAIL FROM:<>
>  250 2.1.0 <>....Sender OK
> 
> 
> Fine, it accepts NULL return-path as is mandated by RFC 2821 section 6.1
> 
>  RSET
>  250 2.0.0 Resetting
>  MAIL FROM:<[email protected]>
>  250 2.1.0 [email protected] OK
>  RCPT TO:<[email protected]>
>  250 2.1.5 [email protected] 
> 
> 
> Apparently OK!
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Thanks
> najmul 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Lobanov (dsbl) [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 2:54 PM
> To: Najmul W. Khan
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 38.160.176.2
> 
> Hi Najmul,
> 
> On 07/09/05 22:38, Najmul W. Khan wrote:
> 
> 
>>HI Alexey,
>>
>>Thansk for your responds and i follow the links and check the domain 
>>and it did not find any errors,
> 
> 
> Please read the link again. It does not mention any domains, it describes a
> hardware (or, actually, firmware) bug in your network.
> 
> 
>>so why we are still on your list?
> 
> 
> Because you still deny any e-mail from many modern systems which use
> optional extensions of TCP protocol.
> 
> Best,
> Alexey
> 
> 
> 
>>Thanks and please reply to my [email protected] account as well.
>>
>>
>>Najmul
>>
>>-----Original Message----- From: Alexey Lobanov (dsbl) 
>>[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wed 9/7/2005 2:15 PM To:
>>[email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Najmul W. Khan Subject:
>>Re: [DSBL-Contact] Website link for 38.160.176.2
>>
>>Hello.  On 07/09/05 21:27, Najmul Khan wrote:  > HI I am consultant 
>>for these mail servers and anytime we have requested the > removal it 
>>cannot have SMTP connections,  Please read 
>>http://dsbl.org/faq-listed#ecn , then locate and fix the buggy piece 
>>of network equipment somewhere nearby to you.  and we got off all the 
>>listing > except you guys, We had virus and it all remove now. SO 
>>please remove us and > let us know what we can do to prevent this in 
>>the future.  If you want to avoid viruses, I see the only way: do not 
>>use the well-known virus-vulnerable system in servers. There are much 
>>more robust platforms with better understanding of what is an 
>>executable code and what is a passive data.  Other types of 
>>vulnerabilities require more complex defence, and I doubt that you
>>find a simple answer in this maillist.  Best, Alexey   > > Thanks > >
>>Najmul Khan > Twister Media, Inc. > Making Technology Simple > 
>>www.twistermedia.com <http://www.twistermedia.com/> > www.gizby.com 
>><http://www.gizby.com/> > p.1.866.628.2579 > >
>>
>