On 9/24/07, Marcin Krol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Darton,
message that is not spam, and does not originate from a known source of
spam, as one that should be delivered). That's not to say it can't be
given a score in SpamAssassin though.
I agree, no rDNS would be a good rejection
Darton Williams wrote:
It would probably be best to do this directly in SA by increasing the
score for the NO_RDNS rule in your local.cf, e.g.:
score NO_RDNS 5.0
The default is 0.5.
Isn't it RDNS_NONE? default of 0.1 in SA 3.2.3
And yep, way OT for this list :)
--
The Exim Manual
Ted Cooper wrote:
Darton Williams wrote:
It would probably be best to do this directly in SA by increasing the
score for the NO_RDNS rule in your local.cf, e.g.:
score NO_RDNS 5.0
The default is 0.5.
Isn't it RDNS_NONE? default of 0.1 in SA 3.2.3
And yep, way OT for this list :)
score NO_RDNS 5.0
The default is 0.5.
Isn't it RDNS_NONE? default of 0.1 in SA 3.2.3
And yep, way OT for this list :)
Yes, my SpamAssassin 3.2 has RDNS_NONE, default 0.1 as you dscribe.
Looking for it I also found RDNS_DYNAMIC, which I think I may increase
from its current
Hello Darton,
message that is not spam, and does not originate from a known source of
spam, as one that should be delivered). That's not to say it can't be
given a score in SpamAssassin though.
I agree, no rDNS would be a good rejection criterion if we could
assume everyone was following
Darton Williams wrote:
Just to jump in with my $0.02 here:
On 9/19/07, ROGERS Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to reject wherever there is no rDNS, but I think there would be
too many false positives involved. (I know that some here take the view
that this is not a false positive,
ROGERS Richard wrote:
On a slightly related issue - I have an idea that the hit rate from RBLs
(we prinicpally use MAPS+ and Spamhaus) may not be as high is it was a
couple of months ago. Does anyone else have the same feeling (or any
data to confirm/deny)?
I noticed this to. The number of
- Original Message -
From: Darton Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exim Users exim-users@exim.org
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [exim] HELO/EHLO reject rates
I agree, no rDNS would be a good rejection criterion if we could
assume everyone was following
Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
I hard block for no or generic rDNS and on HELO's that do not appear
to be a valid domain name, on my company server and set SA scoring
VERY high on customer servers (so it can be easily adjusted down on
a per domain basis),
Phil, I would be interested to see your
It appears that the effectiveness of filtering out known-bad HELO/EHLO
has dropped somewhat in the past few months:
http://people.spodhuis.org/phil.pennock/img/exim-reject.2007-09-19.png
http://people.spodhuis.org/phil.pennock/img/exim-reject.2007-09-19.ylog.png
Of course, this is in absolute
University
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Pennock
Sent: 19 September 2007 10:32
To: exim-users@exim.org
Subject: [exim] HELO/EHLO reject rates
It appears that the effectiveness of filtering out known-bad HELO/EHLO
has dropped
ROGERS Richard wrote:
Interesting observation. Unfortunately I don't keep historical data for
individual rejection reasons (possibly I should), but my feeling (and
it's only that) is that there has been an increase in the use of domain
literals as HELO/EHLO strings. Although (AFAIK) these
Just to jump in with my $0.02 here:
On 9/19/07, ROGERS Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd love to reject wherever there is no rDNS, but I think there would be
too many false positives involved. (I know that some here take the view
that this is not a false positive, but our users are likely
13 matches
Mail list logo
