Stack Exchange
log in

EEAA

 Discussion on question by Mike Cheel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on serverfault.com/question...
EEAA
Jun 19, 2017 18:34
Well I think the answer is fairly clear. It's likely that something is interfering. But this course of inquiry is pointless. It's like someone asking why there's a scratch on a car that's been totalled in an accident. Rebuild the server.
EEAA
Jun 19, 2017 18:34
WRT Infrastructure, yes I am in charge. Even if you're not, the professional thing for you to do is to recommend to management that the server be rebuilt. If they're not willing to do that, they're incompetent and you should be looking for a new job.
EEAA
Jun 19, 2017 18:34
These are not "smarmy" comments. They are comments by very experienced systems administrators, recommending the only responsible course of action in response to a server compromise.
EEAA
Jun 19, 2017 18:34
@MikeCheel You have a compromised server. Whether or not something is interfering with your connection to Google should be the least of your worries. Nuke the server. You always have that option, and whomever is telling you it's not an option is wrong. Plain and simple, you have absolutely no way to trust anything that is on the server now. You must assume everything is suspect.
EEAA
Jun 19, 2017 18:34
@MikeCheel I'm not sure what you mean by that, but the suggestions you've received in comments here are absolutely the proper way to deal with a compromised server. This may not be what you want to hear, but it's the right answer regardless.
 

 Discussion on question by Tobi: Cant …

Imported from a comment discussion on superuser.com/questions/...
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 12:25
@Tobi If you don't have control of your router to configure things like port forwards, how in the world do you expect others to be able to connect to you?
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 12:17
@Tobi What do these other connections have to do with anyhing? They're not related in any way to your task of debugging this application you're writing as far as I can tell. You have an answer to your original question, which I gave to you hours ago. I'm not sure why you continue dragging things out and needlessly confusing things.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
Because still, three hours later and despite ad nauseam recommendations, you still refuse. You've given zero useful details on your network, how things are configured, where your systems sit that you're using, which systems are the client, which systems are the server, etc. it's almost as if your either hiding something or just don't believe me that this info is important.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
That's a link to all of the things you've ignored.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
superuser.com/questions/1216044/… Again. Good luck and good night.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
Good luck. Honestly. I hope you're able to get this resolved. I'm done being ignored, though, so I'm going to check out of this one.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
You spent two hours not providing the information requested. You still have not come close to giving the information requested. I stand by my assertion, though, that this is due to lack of hairpin NAT support in your router.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
You've given a tiny portion of what I listed. I'm sorry you're under the gun here. Truly. If you're not willing to invest in a good question, though, and to provide information needed to answer, I question how desperate you actually are.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
I've given you a list of what is needed. Twice now. Why do you refuse to give this information? You're flailing around trying to get us to help you without taking a minute to give information requested. Do you want help or do you not want help? If you do, you've already been pointed in the right direction. It's up to you to execute.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
I did no such thing, Tobi. I've been trying honestly to help you this entire time, but you've ignore all of my recommendations.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
Details. Details! Network equipment. How it's configured. What systems are inside the network. What systems are outside the network. Where you're sending traffic from. Where you're sending traffic to. Also, edit your question to include the information. Don't just provide it in comments. You need to help us help you, the more information you can provide, the better.
EEAA
Jun 5, 2017 08:03
You posted this on SF without enough details for anyone to venture a guess as to what's going on. Now you posted the same content here, still lacking those details. Did you think I was kidding when I said more information was needed?
 

 Discussion on answer by DevOps: Email…

Imported from a comment discussion on serverfault.com/question...
EEAA
Sep 17, 2016 03:50
Honestly. I mean that with the best of intentions. I always appreciate when I'm called out on something, because it gives me a chance to better my skills. I hope you are able to do the same.
EEAA
Sep 17, 2016 03:50
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is configured as an open relay. Anyway, I sincerely hope that you're able to take this information and internalize it. You'll be a better sysadmin for it.
EEAA
Sep 17, 2016 03:49
I think here is where you're getting things confused: when a server receives mail from another system, it can optionally check DNS records (along with mail content, IP reputation, blacklists, etc) to determine the likelihood that the message is spam.
EEAA
Sep 17, 2016 00:50
@Xalorous I'm beating a dead horse here, but apparently you're still not getting my initial concern. You keep saying that DNS records and open relays are related. They. Are. Not. Whether an SMTPd is an open relay or not is completely, 100% controlled by its configuration. The SMTP server's configuration. Not DNS records.
EEAA
Sep 16, 2016 21:22
@Xalorous I really was not trolling. When I see a comment or answer posted that is factually incorrect, I have a duty to call it out. A lot of new sysadmins reference ServerFault, and if incorrect information is left as-is here, these people could be led to believe that these two things are related. They're not. So I called it out.
EEAA
Sep 16, 2016 21:20
There we go - an SMTP server may use DNS records to influence whether or not incoming mail is of a legit nature. That is completely optional, though, and again, has nothing to do with whether or not it's an open relay.
EEAA
Sep 16, 2016 21:20
Test it - set up an SMTP server with proper hostname/PTR records. Configure the MTA as an open relay. See if it works as an open relay. (it will). Now remove those PTR records, or set them properly, then see if it works as an open relay (it will). Honestly, I'm not trolling. You are just misunderstanding the relationship between application configuration and DNS.
EEAA
Sep 16, 2016 21:20
@Xalorous Negative, captain. A server can be an open relay regardless of how its PTR records or any other DNS records are configured. I'm not going to continue arguing this with you.
EEAA
Sep 16, 2016 21:20
@Xalorous Still, you're incorrect. Open relay is a matter of SMTPd configuration, not DNS configuration.
EEAA
Sep 16, 2016 21:20
@Xalorous PTR records (or lack thereof) have absolutely nothing to do with whether a server is an open relay.
 

 Discussion on answer by EEAA: hosted …

Imported from a comment discussion on serverfault.com/question...
EEAA
Jun 12, 2016 18:55
Please stop this discussion in the comments. @RachitGupta, you have a DNS problem on your network. According to the rest of the world, your site is working fine. You should accept my answer and then work with your network team or your ISP to resolve your issue.
EEAA
Jun 12, 2016 18:55
You need to examine your local system. There is nothing wrong on your server, nor in your DNS setup. There is nothing further we can help you with.
EEAA
Jun 12, 2016 18:55
Your DNS setup is fine. Do not change it. The issues you are seeing are local to your workstation or laptop. I don't know how to make myself any more clear.
EEAA
Jun 12, 2016 18:55
@RachitGupta Why are you involving GoDaddy? They have nothing to do with this?
EEAA
Jun 12, 2016 18:55
You have a problem that is local to your browser, your workstation, or the network you are on. You can be in disbelief all you want, but the fact remains that your site is working fine.
 

 The Comms Room

ServerFault's lobby
3
EEAA
Nov 5, 2015 03:45
@peterh Now, more than ever, I'm convinced you're here to troll us all. I won't indulge your behavior any longer, and if you continue to participate in un-productive behavior on SF or meta.SF, you can count on a nice ban from the site. Disagreement is fine. Trolling is not.
EEAA
Nov 5, 2015 02:49
@peterh As an aside, if you do see bonafide harassment of anyone on SF, flag it and it will be dealt with swiftly.
EEAA
Nov 5, 2015 02:47
@peterh I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no harassment of newbies, whether or not they provide "good content". If people provide content that SF doesn't want, it gets downvoted and removed so that it doesn't attract the kind of traffic that we seek to avoid.
EEAA
Nov 5, 2015 01:35
@peterh It's maybe time for you to just resign yourself to the fact that perhaps Server Fault isn't the site for you.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:27
well ok then
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:27
why not reach out to VMware support?
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:26
I feel like you're taking this quite personally.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:26
Matt, I'm done trying to help you understand topicality on SF. I'll be looking forward to your meta question.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:24
right...which are off-topic
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:24
it may be supported by VMware. That doesn't make it a good idea outside of a few very specific situations.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:24
well, it's still quite un-reasonable in a non-training, non-lab environment.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:23
k, that's great. Still doesn't make it on-topic.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 02:00
Every theory has its criticisms. That doesn't mean we've not experienced the direct effects of it on SF.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 01:58
we're obviously not dealing with criminal behavior here, but the same thing applies.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 01:58
Broken windows theory
The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking, and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening. The theory was introduced in a 1982 article by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Since then it has been subject to great debate both within the social...
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 01:58
regarding your last comment about SF becoming internet tech support:
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 01:56
...which is what I'm doing.
EEAA
Nov 3, 2015 01:56
When agreeing to be a SF mod, I agreed to uphold the site's charter to the best of my ability.