On Saturday 13 July 2002 10:27 am, Martin Mačok wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:30:59AM -0700, Ben Reser wrote: > > Frankly I don't understand why they have their mailservers setup to > > require reverse DNS. It doesn't kill that many spammers > > We do filter mail servers that doesn't have a reverse DNS record > and we have experienced that the emails which get undelivered due to > this are from 99% from spammers, broken emails from broken mail > servers from broken networks and only ~1% of undelivered emails are > just a "correct" emails from networks with temporary DNS problems and > from badly configured networks or from people not sending emails > through their providers (but directly from their dialup) > Yes, I send e-mail directly from my laptop. I use this machine in a lot of locations, and since each location now only accepts outgoing e-mail from within their own system in order to prevent spam, it would mean having to re-configure my e-mail every time I move the machine. That is one of the main reasons I run Postfix on this machine. Currently the ONLY place that I e-mail regularly (or at least used to :-( ) that has any problem with this is this mailing list.
I can understand why the list wants reverse DNS to prevent spam.. if we're going to continue to do this, though, could we at least lower the delay? If the e-mail bounced in like 5-10 minutes instead of days, it might kind of jog the memory of folks like me to say "Oh yeah - i have to send these out through Earthlink.." and they could be re-sent. Being on a client's site with this machine, if I'm working on their network, there is no way I can access any of the "legal" mail servers that I have access to, so any cooker related traffic would have to wait until I'm off their network, and near a phone line, so that I could dial into Earthlink to send it. > Also note that RFC 2821 (SMTP): > > ... > > 2.3.4 Host > > For the purposes of this specification, a host is a computer system > attached to the Internet (or, in some cases, to a private TCP/IP > network) and supporting the SMTP protocol. Hosts are known by names > (see "domain"); identifying them by numerical address is discouraged > > ... > > > I would imagine the filtering would do just fine getting rid of the spam > > without this requirement. > > Spamassasin? Why not... but I guess it will stress the servers load > even more and could cause more delayed delivering (which is sometimes > really bad now with cooker@) Sorry, Somehow I DON'T think that adding something like Spamassasin is going to bring the cooker mailing list server to its knees - not unless Mandrake has some really poor servers. We're talking what? a few miliseconds per mail to process? (Does this mean that the server might need upgrading? Heck, I could be convinced to donate towards that - if only to get my access to this list back) Vinny
