Bad Addresses

[KitchM]

I also noticed an underlying theme which may be misleading. Do I understand correctly that Debian.org owns forums.debian.net?

The registrant is listed as Software in the Public Interest, Inc. - Debian Project. However, it does not appear that SPI handles servers of any sort for the various projects.

[cuckooflew]

Do I understand correctly that Debian.org owns forums.debian.net?

I don't think that is correct, I do not understand what you mean "the Registrant" ?But no , forums.debian.net is not part of or involved with "Software in the Public Interest, Inc. - Debian Project." All though it is on the debian.org website, support, it is mentioned and a link to the forum is provided.
RE:

I would be glad to help with the admin job if wanted.

See:
http://forums.debian.net/memberlist.php ... roup&g=158

Server Admins

This is a closed group, new members can only join upon invitation of a group leader.

Unless you know either Mez or Ganneff personally, or in reverse if they know you, I am sure if they wanted help , one of them would contact you. I am not sure you understand or realize the trust factor involved to start with, maybe you do.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with the forum, Are you really qualified to repair them ? based on many of your other questions, and please, I hope this does not seem rude, but based on the questions I have seen you ask here, I find it hard to believe you would be qualified and able to solve the various issues with the forum, some seem trivial, but actually it is not a trivial task at all, would be very time consuming and keep in mind very short downtime, is important.
Re:

The forum will block non-specific IP addresses for no good reason

This would be a entirely different topic, but same category ( Forum stuff & feedback ) But if and when you start that topic, be prepared to tell us how it is you know non-specific IP addresses are getting blocked, and perhaps clarify what you mean with that.... Off hand I imagine it is related to blocking spammers,...they are well known for using random and non-specific IP addresses, the phpBB software includes a administrative option, to block IP's ,e-mail , and user names, often a IP that is abusive , repetitively , in many cases several times in a hour, if left unblocked 100's of times in a day, when a IP is being used for spam posts, it gets blocked for a period of time, the forum admins select the time period, any way, I should not need to explain all these details to someone that is or claims to be qualified to be a forum administrator, and someone qualified to be a server admin, well they would know much more then me, I can only scratch the surface on that subject, most of my experience is from helping someone much older,more experienced and wiser. All though I do own several dedicated servers my self, for example: especially with security issues I needed to hire a technician to help on that, but I guess that is another topic. But believe me, finding a tech that is trustworthy, has time available, and at a reasonable price is not a trivial task either, unless one happens to personally know one, but even then the "time available", is difficult. IT techs that are trustworthy,etc stay very busy these days.
Anyway, I am sure your offer to help is appreciated, a good starting point would be the "spamhunters" Also perhaps consider first joining some of the mailing-lists, eg: debian-wwwthere are several other mail lists, :MailingLists or
https://lists.debian.org/ The Debian wiki is open to volunteers and need a lot of work, many pages are out of date. If the wiki was more uptodate, there would be less need to ask so many questions here.. any way, I am tired now..have a good day
==== edit====
P.S. Your Debian system comes with 2 commands, default, see 'man dig' and 'man whois' they can be used to determine whois the owner of a domain and/or the IP associated with the domain,..who owns the forum is not any secret.

[cuckooflew]

Hi, I don't have access to the server, its logs or anything else server related. I am in the dark here. I use the same email to contact the orange guys (server admins).
This is interesting though. After some reading I found that Insufficient system storage on the server can cause the mysql issue.

I know, and this is a real problem, 4D696B65 I think you really do a excellent job, with very limited resources, or permissions. The real problem is lack of communication on part of the server admins, I don't mean to bash them, after all without the server and the fact that it hosts the forum, where would we be ?
Look at the last time any of the server admins actually visited the forum:
Mez

Joined:
2009-04-23 22:04
Last visited:
2019-08-09 07:34

A little less then a year ago,...
==================
Ganneff
Actually, he has the "last visited" blocked, it does not say...there is a option on phpBB forums, admins can do that. ... But any way, it seems like one of them would at least check in once and a while, do some basic maintenance, like clear the cache, and free up some space in the mysql data base, to avoid crashes, etc, and now the e-mail issue, ....no way to contact them is not good. I realize they are probably very busy, and since they are developers, maybe the forum is not important, obviously they are advanced enough and familiar enough with Debian, no need for the forum, but for those that are new to Debian there is a need, it is important. There is the mailing lists, but many of us do not like using a mailing list, I say we, because I am one person that really does not like the mail lists much, for various reasons, any way I have to many chores today, my helper needed a day off, so I guess I better get busy with that. That is all for now.

[KitchM]

A "Registrant" is the person who signs up a domain name with a Registrar.

I don't think that is correct,...

So you are not sure. I am, based upon the public records.

I find it hard to believe you would be qualified and able to solve the various issues with the forum...

That would be a bad assumption.

be prepared to tell us how it is you know non-specific IP addresses are getting blocked...

Of course I am. Please do not assume I am not. However, doing so now would simply confuse the issue.

I should not need to explain all these details to someone that is or claims to be qualified to be a forum administrator, and someone qualified to be a server admin,...

That is correct; you do not.

...see 'man dig' and 'man whois'...

FYI, more appropriate is to use whois.com or whois.org.

I agree with the problem of lack of contact with the sysadmins. The earlier link given showed me how to find them in this forum. That was appreciated and I did send them both a PM. Let’s see if that works. There is very little more we can do. Of course, we could try to contact the registrant. In fact, I may have already done that.

[dilberts_left_nut]

Code: Select all

Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 450 4.1.7 <kitchm@tutanota.com>: Sender address
    rejected: unverified address: host mail.tutanota.de[81.3.6.165] said: 450
    4.7.1 Client host rejected: cannot find your reverse hostname,
    [217.196.43.138] (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Your mail server is rejecting the sender address verification probe so tartini thinks you are an sending from an invalid address.

[reinob]

Okay, still not working. I received this report:
Reporting-MTA: dns; w1.tutanota.de
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 8E64AFA03E9
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; kitchm@tutanota.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 18:30:16 +0000 (UTC)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; admin@forums.debian.net
Original-Recipient: rfc822;admin@forums.debian.net
Action: failed
Status: 4.1.7
Remote-MTA: dns; tartini.debian.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 450 4.1.7 <kitchm@tutanota.com>: Sender address
rejected: unverified address: host mail.tutanota.de[81.3.6.165] said: 450
4.7.1 Client host rejected: cannot find your reverse hostname,
[217.196.43.138] (in reply to RCPT TO command)


I believe that I had verified my address when I signed up, so this makes no sense.

That error has nothing to do with you, but with your e-mail provider (tutanota.de).
mail.tutanota.de resolves to 81.3.6.162 and 81.3.6.165, but 81.3.6.162 reverse-resolves to w1.tutanota.de and 81.3.6.165 to w4.tutanota.de.

That should be mostly OK, but some mail servers really require that IP <-> hostname resolve OK in both directions, as an anti-spam measure.

So you'd have to (1) contact the server admins per e-mail to tell them to relax those restrictions (which are way out of date and cause more problems than they solve), so that you can (2) contact the server admins per e-mail to.. oh wait :)

(OK you can do (1) with another e-mail address..)

[KitchM]

Thanks for the feedback. I have sent the last information to Tutanota to see if they can figure anything out about it. I'll keep you posted.

[reinob]

Thanks for the feedback. I have sent the last information to Tutanota to see if they can figure anything out about it. I'll keep you posted.

Hmm.. I think what I wrote is not quite right. From what you posted:

Code: Select all

Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 450 4.1.7 <kitchm@tutanota.com>: Sender address
rejected: unverified address: host mail.tutanota.de[81.3.6.165] said: 450
4.7.1 Client host rejected: cannot find your reverse hostname,
[217.196.43.138] (in reply to RCPT TO command)

It appears that there are two errors being mixed into one. The first one "450 4.1.7" says that your address wasn't verified, but it is not clear whether that's tutanota speaking (when you submitted the message) or debian (during the delivery attempt). The second one (450 4.7.1) is tutanota complaining about debian's server (forums.debian.net is 217.196.43.138 but 217.196.43.138 doesn't resolve back to forums.debian.net).

I have the feeling that what you posted was not copied/pasted correctly, as the two error messages come from different places. Could you confirm that?

[KitchM]

Here's the response from Tutanota:

the problem is that the reverse dns entry is missing for 217.196.43.138. The maintainers of that mail server need to setup the reverse dns entry.

It is about what I thought. A simple setting that the admins failed to set. If that is correct, it is a bit of a rookie mistake.