sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
spam).

The starting point is:
-a domain name mydomain.com registered at a hosting company (enom,
godaddy, etc).
-Ability to set MX, A, and CNAME records for any machine in
*.mydomain.com
-a linux box running sendmail.
-a static IP that can be used for mail server.
-I cannot set the reverse lookup DNS for this static IP since it is
owned by ISP

Setting the server is trivial but not getting branded as spam by major
email hubs (yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc.) is the challenge.

Thanks.

S

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

wrote in message
news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.googleg roups.com...
> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
> spam).

No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.

> The starting point is:
> -a domain name mydomain.com registered at a hosting company (enom, godaddy,
etc).
> -Ability to set MX, A, and CNAME records for any machine in *.mydomain.com
> -a linux box running sendmail.
> -a static IP that can be used for mail server.
> -I cannot set the reverse lookup DNS for this static IP since it is owned by
ISP

Last point - wrong. If you can't change it, it means that your ISP won't let
you. Granted, you have to submit your request to them because they control the
reverse zone, ....

> Setting the server is trivial but not getting branded as spam by major
> email hubs (yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc.) is the challenge.

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

In article "D. Stussy"
writes:
> wrote in message
>news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.google groups.com...
>> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
>> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
>> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
>> spam).
>
>No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.

Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
issue.:-)

>> The starting point is:
>> -a domain name mydomain.com registered at a hosting company (enom, godaddy,
>etc).
>> -Ability to set MX, A, and CNAME records for any machine in *.mydomain.com
>> -a linux box running sendmail.
>> -a static IP that can be used for mail server.
>> -I cannot set the reverse lookup DNS for this static IP since it is owned by
>ISP
>
>Last point - wrong. If you can't change it, it means that your ISP won't let
>you. Granted, you have to submit your request to them because they control the
>reverse zone, ....
>
>> Setting the server is trivial but not getting branded as spam by major
>> email hubs (yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc.) is the challenge.

And that branding can happen due to any of

- Your server actually sending spam (you can control that).
- Your server's IP address being in a block that someone, somewhere,
considers to be for "residential use" or any other classification that
someone (else) doesn't think has any business sending mail "directly"
(you *may* be able to get a different IP address from your ISP, and it
*may* help).
- Your server's IP address reverse-mapping to a name that has some
arbitrary strings that someone, somewhere, considers to be an
indication that it is for "residential use" or ... (see D. Stussy's
response above).
- Your server's IP address reverse-mapping to a name that doesn't have a
forward mapping that includes your server's IP address (see
D. Stussy's response above).
- Any number of other things that someone thinks is "bad".

But go ahead and try it - in any case sending "direct" vs via ISP's
server doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, by using mailertable
you can decide per destination domain (with one or the other being the
default).

--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

"Per Hedeland" wrote in message
news:fhvqqm$t0l$1@hedeland.org...
> In article "D. Stussy"
> writes:
> > wrote in message
> >news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.google groups.com...
> >> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
> >> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
> >> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
> >> spam).
> >
> >No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.
>
> Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
> since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
> course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
> to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
> issue.:-)

I think Mr. Hedeland misinterpreted my statement. The default I spoke of is to
go directly to the destination machine. That's why he won't find any
documentation specific to that setup.

> >> The starting point is:
> >> -a domain name mydomain.com registered at a hosting company (enom,
godaddy,
> >etc).
> >> -Ability to set MX, A, and CNAME records for any machine in *.mydomain.com
> >> -a linux box running sendmail.
> >> -a static IP that can be used for mail server.
> >> -I cannot set the reverse lookup DNS for this static IP since it is owned
by
> >ISP
> >
> >Last point - wrong. If you can't change it, it means that your ISP won't let
> >you. Granted, you have to submit your request to them because they control
the
> >reverse zone, ....
> >
> >> Setting the server is trivial but not getting branded as spam by major
> >> email hubs (yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc.) is the challenge.
>
> And that branding can happen due to any of
>
> - Your server actually sending spam (you can control that).
> - Your server's IP address being in a block that someone, somewhere,
> considers to be for "residential use" or any other classification that
> someone (else) doesn't think has any business sending mail "directly"
> (you *may* be able to get a different IP address from your ISP, and it
> *may* help).
> - Your server's IP address reverse-mapping to a name that has some
> arbitrary strings that someone, somewhere, considers to be an
> indication that it is for "residential use" or ... (see D. Stussy's
> response above).
> - Your server's IP address reverse-mapping to a name that doesn't have a
> forward mapping that includes your server's IP address (see
> D. Stussy's response above).
> - Any number of other things that someone thinks is "bad".
>
> But go ahead and try it - in any case sending "direct" vs via ISP's
> server doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, by using mailertable
> you can decide per destination domain (with one or the other being the
> default).

....But don't be surprised if your message is refused.

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

In article "D. Stussy"
writes:
>"Per Hedeland" wrote in message
>news:fhvqqm$t0l$1@hedeland.org...
>> In article "D. Stussy"
>> writes:
>> > wrote in message
>> >news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.google groups.com...
>> >> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
>> >> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
>> >> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
>> >> spam).
>> >
>> >No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.
>>
>> Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
>> since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
>> course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
>> to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
>> issue.:-)
>
>I think Mr. Hedeland misinterpreted my statement.

Indeed I did, sorry about that - and I don't really see why since both
answer and statement were perfectly clear. Maybe my parsing of the
somewhat convoluted question suffered some damage in the middle of
reading your text, and ended up being inverted... (and then repaired
itself again:-).

--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

On Nov 23, 5:49 pm, p...@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:
> In article "D. Stussy"
>
>
>
> writes:
> >"Per Hedeland" wrote in message
> >news:fhvqqm$t0l$1@hedeland.org...
> >> In article "D. Stussy"
> >> writes:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> >news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.google groups.com...
> >> >> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
> >> >> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
> >> >> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
> >> >> spam).
>
> >> >No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.
>
> >> Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
> >> since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
> >> course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
> >> to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
> >> issue.:-)
>
> >I think Mr. Hedeland misinterpreted my statement.
>
> Indeed I did, sorry about that - and I don't really see why since both
> answer and statement were perfectly clear. Maybe my parsing of the
> somewhat convoluted question suffered some damage in the middle of
> reading your text, and ended up being inverted... (and then repaired
> itself again:-).
>
> --Per Hedeland
> p...@hedeland.org


I also understood Stussy's reply to mean the default is to do a direct
delivery. I guess both Per and I got confused by my convoluted
question! :)

Thanks for both your replies.

S

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

In article

"sasan3@gmail.com" writes:
>On Nov 23, 5:49 pm, p...@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:
>> In article "D. Stussy"
>>
>>
>>
>> writes:
>> >"Per Hedeland" wrote in message
>> >news:fhvqqm$t0l$1@hedeland.org...
>> >> In article "D. Stussy"
>> >> writes:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.google groups.com...
>> >> >> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
>> >> >> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
>> >> >> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
>> >> >> spam).
>>
>> >> >No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.
>>
>> >> Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
>> >> since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
>> >> course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
>> >> to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
>> >> issue.:-)
>>
>> >I think Mr. Hedeland misinterpreted my statement.
>>
>> Indeed I did, sorry about that - and I don't really see why since both
>> answer and statement were perfectly clear. Maybe my parsing of the
>> somewhat convoluted question suffered some damage in the middle of
>> reading your text, and ended up being inverted... (and then repaired
>> itself again:-).

>I also understood Stussy's reply to mean the default is to do a direct
>delivery. I guess both Per and I got confused by my convoluted
>question! :)

That *is* what it meant, so I was the only one confused - unless I
managed to confuse you too with my response.:-)

--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

On Nov 27, 11:24 pm, p...@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "sas...@gmail.com" writes:
> >On Nov 23, 5:49 pm, p...@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:
> >> In article "D. Stussy"
>
> >> writes:
> >> >"Per Hedeland" wrote in message
> >> >news:fhvqqm$t0l$1@hedeland.org...
> >> >> In article "D. Stussy"
> >> >> writes:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.google groups.com...
> >> >> >> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
> >> >> >> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
> >> >> >> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
> >> >> >> spam).
>
> >> >> >No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.
>
> >> >> Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
> >> >> since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
> >> >> course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
> >> >> to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
> >> >> issue.:-)
>
> >> >I think Mr. Hedeland misinterpreted my statement.
>
> >> Indeed I did, sorry about that - and I don't really see why since both
> >> answer and statement were perfectly clear. Maybe my parsing of the
> >> somewhat convoluted question suffered some damage in the middle of
> >> reading your text, and ended up being inverted... (and then repaired
> >> itself again:-).
> >I also understood Stussy's reply to mean the default is to do a direct
> >delivery. I guess both Per and I got confused by my convoluted
> >question! :)
>
> That *is* what it meant, so I was the only one confused - unless I
> managed to confuse you too with my response.:-)
>
> --Per Hedeland
> p...@hedeland.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

da.n! I must have been confused when I wrote my reply!

I meant to say:

I also understood Stussy's reply to mean the default is to go through
a relay server. I guess both Per and I got confused by my convoluted
question! :)


I should find me a proof-reader!

Re: sendmail server (direct delivery) how to set up?

In article

"sasan3@gmail.com" writes:
>On Nov 27, 11:24 pm, p...@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:
>> In article
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "sas...@gmail.com" writes:
>> >On Nov 23, 5:49 pm, p...@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) wrote:
>> >> In article "D. Stussy"
>>
>> >> writes:
>> >> >"Per Hedeland" wrote in message
>> >> >news:fhvqqm$t0l$1@hedeland.org...
>> >> >> In article "D. Stussy"
>> >> >> writes:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>>news:b144efa2-e88e-4f7d-9f57-be1122d305ef@e6g2000prf.googl egroups.com...
>> >> >> >> Is there a document that describes how to set up an email server on
>> >> >> >> linux that does not go throgh ISP's relay server but serves email
>> >> >> >> directly to the destination machine? (focus on not getting branded as
>> >> >> >> spam).
>>
>> >> >> >No, and there won't be. That's the default setup.
>>
>> >> >> Huh? Obviously the default can't be to go through the ISP's relay server
>> >> >> since that relay server isn't known by anyone but the ISP's users. Of
>> >> >> course the default is precisely what is asked for, i.e. deliver directly
>> >> >> to the destination (MX). Not getting branded as spam is a separate
>> >> >> issue.:-)
>>
>> >> >I think Mr. Hedeland misinterpreted my statement.
>>
>> >> Indeed I did, sorry about that - and I don't really see why since both
>> >> answer and statement were perfectly clear. Maybe my parsing of the
>> >> somewhat convoluted question suffered some damage in the middle of
>> >> reading your text, and ended up being inverted... (and then repaired
>> >> itself again:-).
>> >I also understood Stussy's reply to mean the default is to do a direct
>> >delivery. I guess both Per and I got confused by my convoluted
>> >question! :)
>>
>> That *is* what it meant, so I was the only one confused - unless I
>> managed to confuse you too with my response.:-)

>da.n! I must have been confused when I wrote my reply!
>
>I meant to say:
>
>I also understood Stussy's reply to mean the default is to go through
>a relay server. I guess both Per and I got confused by my convoluted
>question! :)

Ah. Now everything is unconfused.:-)

--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org