nanog mailing list archives
Re: uunet
From: Jeff Wasilko <jeffw () smoe org>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:34:55 -0500
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 10:26:16PM +0000, Tim Thorne wrote:
"Dave Howe" <DaveHowe () gmx co uk> wrote:there then followed a short conversation that amounted to that - given that $mydomain was working fine, they would *not* look at the problem for $contractorsdomain unless $contractor contacted them about it. I found postmaster@contractorsdomain worked fine, so managed to get *that* guy to get uunet to fix the problem (and it was literally a thirty second fix).You can hardly expect an ISP to change an MX record on the opinion (right or wrong) of a third party. It could be someone trying a little
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original poster wasn't trying to get UUnet to change an MX record. Rather, the uunet-provided MX host for the domain was not set up to 'relay' mail for that domain, and the original poster was trying to get UUnet to fix their MTA config. -j
Current thread:
- uunet Scott Granados (Jan 18)
- Re: uunet Scott Granados (Jan 19)
- Re: uunet Hank Nussbacher (Jan 19)
- Re: uunet David Barak (Jan 20)
- Re: uunet Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 20)
- Re: uunet Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 20)
- Re: uunet Vadim Antonov (Jan 20)
- Re: uunet Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Jan 20)
- RE: uunet Deepak Jain (Jan 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: uunet Chad Skidmore (Jan 19)
