- Previous message: william(at)elan.net: "Re: AOL Lameness"
- Maybe in reply to: Mike Lyon: "AOL Lameness"
- Next in thread: Suresh Ramasubramanian: "Re: AOL Lameness"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Jeff Shultz (no email)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2006 - 14:20:42 EDT
Along the lines of "a picture is worth...etc.." an actual example of an
e-mail that is sent out generating that error would be very useful.
I'm guessing that, from the page at the URL provided, AOL has decided
that banning dotted quads from e-mails will cut down on the spam and
phishing scams. They very well might be right.
Mike Lyon wrote:
>
> OK, I should clarify this. The description that is on that link I put
> in my original e-mail doesn't actually describe what is happening, but
> that is the error they spit back at me.
>
> What really is happening is that the url that is in my e-mail and when
> you reolve it to an IP, if you do a reverse lookup on that IP, it
> comes back with a generic DNS entry that my colo provider has assigned
> to it. So the issue seems to be that the reverse DNS entry and the
> domain name don't match. But this isn't really an issue, a lot of
> providers do it this way.
>
> But why is AOL being lame with this?
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On 10/2/06, Matt Baldwin <> wrote:
>> Yes, I'm noticing this too. Very lame indeed. Doing a quick Google
>> on it in the Groups it seems that it was a feature that was enabled
>> earlier this year. My guess is they turned it off, then turned it
>> back on. Anyone from AOL care to explain this behavior and what should
>> be communicated to the end-user?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -matt
>>
>> On 10/2/06, Mike Lyon <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Is anyone else noticing new AOL lameness that when you send an e-mail
>> > to an AOL user and if the e-mail has a URL in it but the reverse
>> > lookup of that url doesn't come back to that domain name that AOL's
>> > postmaster rejects it and gives you this URL:
>> > http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvuip.html
>> >
>> > This has to be new policty for them because it never rejected them
>> before...
>> >
>> > Ugh.
>> >
>> > -Mike
>> >
>>
>
-- Jeff Shultz
|
|
|