Skip to main content

domain name system - Is the Reverse PTR record fine

I've checked my email headers at href="http://mxtoolbox.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://mxtoolbox.com
which says it is ok. But I'm not sure.



MY
server's FQDN is host.tariffplansindia.com and for my server's IP( 23.239.30.81) the
reverse PTR record resolves to
tariffplansindia.com.



But all my emails have
server name as host.tariffplansindia.com.



Do
23.239.30.81's reverse PTR need to resolve to host.tariffplansindia.com or is it ok with
set currently(tariffplansindia.com
)



Email
headers:






Delivered-To:
            rag.rag22@gmail.com
Received: by 10.114.81.66 with SMTP id
            y2csp615139ldx;
 Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:25:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Received:
            by 10.182.215.136 with SMTP id oi8mr27687082obc.18.1416277503115;
 Mon, 17 Nov
            2014 18:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: 
Received: from
            host.tariffplansindia.com (tariffplansindia.com.
            [2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe73:2b08])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
            q10si41713064obk.50.2014.11.17.18.25.02

 for 

            (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Mon, 17 Nov 2014
            18:25:02 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of
            rag22@host.tariffplansindia.com designates 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe73:2b08 as permitted
            sender) client-ip=2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe73:2b08;
Authentication-Results:
            mx.google.com;
 spf=pass (google.com: domain of
            rag22@host.tariffplansindia.com designates 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe73:2b08 as permitted
            sender) smtp.mail=rag22@host.tariffplansindia.com
Received: by
            host.tariffplansindia.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id BA43713534; Tue, 18
            Nov 2014 07:55:01 +0530 (IST)
To: rag.rag22@gmail.com
Subject:
            Content indianworkingwoman.org changed

X-PHP-Originating-Script:
            1000:checkforum.php
Message-Id: 
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:55:01
            +0530 (IST)
From: rag22@host.tariffplansindia.com
            (AccountA)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?
Post a Comment
Read more

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,
Post a Comment
Read more

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able
Post a Comment
Read more