Deathwish.dreamhost.com?


#1

Hi all,

I ran one of my domains (antioxid.com) through DNS Report - http://dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=antioxid.com - and it’s quite an impressive tool. Everything seems fine, except this:

WARNING: One or more of your mailservers is claiming to be a host other than what it really is (the SMTP greeting should be a 3-digit code, followed by a space or a dash, then the host name). This probably won’t cause any harm, but is a technical violation of RFC821 4.3 (and RFC2821 4.3.1). Note that the hostname given in the SMTP greeting should have an A record pointing back to the same server.

fltr-in1.mail.dreamhost.com claims to be host enforcer.dreamhost.com [but that host is at 66.33.220.4, not 66.33.206.230].
fltr-in2.mail.dreamhost.com claims to be host deathwish.dreamhost.com [but that host is at 66.33.206.108, not 66.33.206.231].

“enforcer” and “deathwish”? Hmmm… Are these real DH server names? Spooky


#2

Not sure about deathwish, but enforcer has to do with the Junk mail filter.

:cool: Perl / MySQL / HTML+CSS


#3

I think deathwish is involved too. When I check the headers of incoming mail, there’s these lines:
Received: from deathwish.dreamhost.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (deathwish [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)

I wish they’d use something less scary-sounding. “deathwish” is really not a good word.

TorbenGB
Try out DreamHost with a free WebIDPrices, options


#4

Ok, ok - I’ll answer this one. I wasn’t responsible for these names (I’m very supersitious about machine names), but the theme for the junk filter machines was / is something like “tough guy movies” (I think the 1974 “Death Wish” and 1976 “The Enforcer” are the basis for those two machines). I guess one could make some interesting arguments about spam assassination and vigilante justice, but the basic idea is to get tough with your spam.

Maybe not cheerful, but hey - it’s less boring than fltr-in01, right? You can always submit a support request and ask that future machines be named “fluffy” and “muffy”, or “cumulus” and “nimbus” or something nice and happy and fluffy like that.

I wouldn’t worry too much about warnings from dnsreport.com. I think this is an overly strict interpretation of rfc821 / 2821 - all it says is that that section of the machine’s SMTP banner should have the machine’s fully qualified hostname. In any event, it’s not a problem in actual practice… and as they say, stuff that says “warn” is usually minor, and often not worth pursuing. I find the dnsreport tool annoying in that regard, because a lot of times, people get all hot and bothered about things that aren’t really a big deal. Useful tool… if you understand how to interpret the results and know when something is or isn’t a real problem.


#5

Ha, a very good reply. I had no idea there were movie titles like those (though I was actually alive back in 1974 :slight_smile: ). In this perspective, it makes a lot more sense – and please be VERY mean to our spam. We wouldn’t have it any other way! :slight_smile:

Thanks Will!

TorbenGB
Try out DreamHost with a free WebIDPrices, options