Mike needed more coffee today..
Thank you all for your help!
<crawls back into cave>
-Mike
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM, W B Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:
> Todd Lyons wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Mike Lyon<mike.lyon@???> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I have the forward and reverse IPs matching. Don't have any MX
>>> records for that specific domain set-up because I don't have any inbound
>>> mail setup for that domain (nor do I want it).
>>>
>>
>> Set up an MX record that indicates that then.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-delany-nullmx-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delany-nullmx-00>
>> It may only be draft, but I've seen it in the past in live production.
>>
>> It's an IP block that was allocated to us from ATT on a business
>>> circuit. I
>>> checked the IP addresses on MX toolbox and they come up clean
>>>
>>
>> That's a good thing.
>>
>> Would they actually refuse the connection if there were no MX records for
>>> that domain?
>>>
>>
>> If they do, then they break fallback to A records as defined in the RFC's.
>>
>> ...Todd
>>
>
> Forensics taken offline. Testing completed.
>
> Not a Google issue, nor Exim, nor DNS...
>
> Stale FW rule on port 25 was penning Mike right in hizzown tcpip stack...
> never left his own box.
>
> Nothing further to see here...
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Bill
> --
> 韓家標
>
> --
> ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/**mailman/listinfo/exim-users<https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users>
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
>
--
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826
mike.lyon@???
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
