Обсуждение: new mail server for PGSQL-GENERAL ?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

new mail server for PGSQL-GENERAL ?

От
Phil Howard
Дата:
Did the PGSQL-GENERAL move to a new mail server?  I whitelisted
the domain, but now that does no good because someone forgot to
set up the reverse DNS on the new servers.  Are these the correct
addresses now:  64.117.224.193 and 64.117.225.159

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| phil-nospam@ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: new mail server for PGSQL-GENERAL ?

От
The Hermit Hacker
Дата:
expect it to be any IP within the range of:

64.117.224.130 -> 254
64.117.255.130 -> 254

we've been frantic on getting the VMs setup and debugged, the reverse DNS
has been taking second fiddle ... will get that straightened out next ...

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Phil Howard wrote:

> Did the PGSQL-GENERAL move to a new mail server?  I whitelisted
> the domain, but now that does no good because someone forgot to
> set up the reverse DNS on the new servers.  Are these the correct
> addresses now:  64.117.224.193 and 64.117.225.159
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
> | phil-nospam@ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

Re: new mail server for PGSQL-GENERAL ?

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> expect it to be any IP within the range of:
> 64.117.224.130 -> 254
> 64.117.255.130 -> 254

Shouldn't that second line be 64.117.225.*?

            regards, tom lane