Dyndns (and knockd)

[Matt Graham]

On Friday 20 July 2007 12:27, after a long battle with technology, 
Eric "Shubes" wrote:
> Jon M. Hanson wrote:
[snippage]
> > When I had Qwest's VDSL service in Gilbert, Arizona incoming port
> > 80 was definitely blocked. Also, the IP address I had showed up in
> > dynamic lists (because it is dynamic but the address never changed)
> > making it sometimes difficult to directly send e-mail
> That's interesting. I have Qwest's VDSL in Chandler. Port 80 is open.

Yeah, there seems to be no coherence to this sort of thing.

> Sending mail from a server on a dynamic address has become more of a 
> problem lately (over the last 6 months or so) as various RBLs
> (zen.spamhaus.org in particular) have added dynamic pools to their
> block lists.

6 months?  I thought it was more like 2 years.  Unfortunately, there's 
no way to shoot SMTP, shovel dirt over it, and come up with something 
better.  It'd cause the mother of all Flag Days.  And then some 
@#$%^ing spammer would figure out a way around whatever the new P is 
and we'd be back to status quo ante.

> I use dyndns.org's mailhop service (which is reasonably 
> affordable) to circumvent this problem.

That works, pity it costs $.

Mail:  I saw something odd 2 days ago when I was setting up Postfix at 
home (long story.)  Fix self-caused stupid errors in config file, local 
delivery works, no problem.  Have postfix use smtp.comcast.net (my 
ISP's SMTP server) as the smarthost.  telnet mail.comcast.net 110 and 
check my never-used Comcast mail just in case they're doing 
POP-before-SMTP.

Then send test message using pine, relayed through postfix, to this 
address.  postfix logs say "250 message accepted for delivery".  
Message never arrives.  Same thing happens when sending to my gmail and 
my work mail.  So, something stupid is happening and I have no idea 
what it is.  Oh well,

-- 
   Once I saw this wino who was eating grapes, and I said, "Dude, you
   have to wait."  --Mitch Hedberg
There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see