I am using sendgrid for receiving emails.But I would like to know can I have a single inbound parse setting for all subdomains. For example we will give different subdomain email to all users
user 1 :- username#user1.domain.com
user 2 :- username2#user2.domain.com
user 3 :- username3#user3.domain.com
.... the same will be followed for all users
As per the documentation I have to add a different inbound parse for each and every subdomain which is a bit complex thing to do.
Is there any way that I can overcome this problem ? Like a single inbound parse for all subdomains for example ( receivingdomain :- *.domain.com, url:- https://url.com )
I would be thankfull if you could give me a little help
Related
I'm working on a tool to generate SPF TXT records and I am trying to get a loop for scanning the domain for the relevant hosts A records. All I get is just a single entry when I supply the domain name as the domain to check. The other hosts in the domain don't return entries...
Any ideas on how to do this?
Did some research and it seems that you need to do a zone transfer to get the records, as allowing a random IP to access the whole domain has too many security vectors. So no real way to do what I was wanting... Sorry for wasting time!
Let's say I have 10,000 usernames in the RDBMS database which will use the XMPP chat service like Ejabberd or MongooseIM that I will put manually in the database. Now every 1000 usernames in the above 10,000 have fixed prefix in their JID usernames like:
1-1000 usernames start with aa__ (Example - aa10001, aa10002 , ...)
1001-2000 usernames start with bb__ (Example - bb10001, bb10002, ...)
2000-3000 usernames start with cc__ (Example - cc10001, cc10002, ...)
and so on ... total of 10 different prefix usernames
Now I just want that these 10 different pairs must not know others prefix usernames pairs and must not be able to send any type of stanza (like message, presence, IQ) to other pair (having a different prefix)
Possibilities:
If I can use some regex in the block policy then that would be great instead of blocking the individual.
I know u may suggest of using a different Virtual host for each pair. But managing so many Virtual hosts can be difficult because in the above example 10K is just a small example of a bigger picture.
Please let me know if question is not clear to you?
I just want that these 10 different pairs must not know others prefix usernames pairs and must not be able to send any type of stanza (like message, presence, IQ) to other pair (having a different prefix)
First of all, play with mod_filter. Looking at its example configurations, probably you can accomplish what you want using it:
https://github.com/processone/ejabberd-contrib/tree/master/mod_filter
Maybe you can define ACL based in the usernames patterns ("aa*" or something like that), and this way you can have all users in a single vhost.
In case the only solution requires having a vhost for each user group, some ideas:
Now every 1000 usernames in the above 10,000 have fixed prefix in their JID usernames like:
As you mentioned, you can define a vhost in ejabberd for each user group: 10001#aa.example.com... Or in order to not change existing usernames: aa10001#aa.example.com...
Maybe if I can use Virtual host in some way that it is easy to manage (adding new pairs frequently) without adding a new database for each then that will be a best-ever solution
Right, you can have all the vhosts in a single database, if you configure ejabberd like this and use the apropiate *.sql file when creating the database:
new_sql_schema: true
Can I add a virtual host dynamically in the config without stopping the server?
Yes, it should work (it's a recent feature). Edit ejabberd.yml as you wish, and reload it with:
$ ejabberdctl reload_config
I am using the REST API of HERE. I am trying to obtain the traffic signs corresponding to a set of LINK_IDS.
I have a list of the links (unique IDs) I am interested in, however I do not know how to obtain the traffic signs which are found in these links. As I understand there should only be 1 traffic sign in each link, at the end of the link.
Can anyone hint what is the way to proceed? I was trying to use Platform Data Extension API to do this, but have not been successful.
The most I have been able to achieve is obtaining all the traffic signs in one tile, by querying the following:
http://pde.cit.api.here.com/1/tile.json?region=EU
&release=LATEST
&layer=TRAFFIC_SIGN_FC1
&level=9
&tilex=537&tiley=399
&app_id={APP_ID}&app_code={APP_CODE}
However, this is not even working for all locations. I tried in different parts of the city of London and the output I obtain is:
{
"Rows":
Array[0][
]
}
In summary, my goal is to obtain the corresponding traffic sign (s) in a link. That is, for link with ID XXXXXXXXX I would like to see which is the traffic sign present in the location marked by this link.
I am trying to obtain the traffic signs corresponding to a set of LINK_IDS
There is no straight solution to this yet. You have to use PDE layer which gets all traffic information for a tile and then extract the link ids of your interest. We have 100% coverage in WEU and NA. For MEA, we have 100% coverage on FC1-FC4 roads and less coverage on FC5 roads(which are destination roads).
I am trying to add new MX records from google which provide the following data:
1- Priority
2- Host Alias
3- Value and destination
The problem is that there is nothing to add to the DATA filed in add DNS Record as shown in the screenshot in the attachments.
Can you kindly guide me to what to put there?
You should enter the priority value received from google in Data field.
Like 10 mail.example.com
I have been asked to implement some email address validation on a web app - I'm sure we've all been there a thousand times... however, this time I have been asked to do an MX Lookup on the domain to see if it accepts emails.
Does anyone know of any potential problems with doing this? Is an mx lookup a reliable way of finding out if a domain accepts email? are there any edge cases where a valid email address could fail an MX lookup check?
Thanks for your advice!
are there any edge cases where a valid email address could fail an MX lookup check?
Yes, in that where there is no MX record, MTAs fall back to using the A record instead. So only allowing MX records would fail a class of mail servers that work in the real world.
Allowing any name with an MX or A record at least detects obvious mistypings that result in NXDOMAIN. However it will still allow mistypings that end up at squatter sites. A further step for addresses resolved by A records might be to check where port 25 is accepting connections on that address.
You can only check if there is an mail server registered for the domain.
If the server also accepts mails and if the address is valid (not syntactically but in the sense that there exists a inbox for it and so on...) you will only find out when sending the e.g. registration email
sample on how to do this in PHP
function mailserver_exists($email) {
list($user,$domain) = split('#',$email);
//included check for 'A' after [comment from bobince][1]
return checkdnsrr($domain,'MX') || checkdnsrr($domain,'A');
}
if(domain_exists('joe#foreigndomain.xx')) {...} else {...}
Yes you can use 'TinyTim#192.184.165.13' too. The PHP documentation for checkdnsrr(host, type) states
host may either be the IP address in
dotted-quad notation or the host name