Scott, >Doesn't mean HOPHIGH=1 that declude should scan two IPs? The first (connecting) one >and -if present- the IP before.
I understand - I think - about IPBYPASS but HOPHIGH is another story.. I am interested because often times mail is forwarded to my server and as such some tests are not as effective. As an example <sombody>@example.com send an email to a server that in turn forwards the email to one of my users. Spamdomains fails because the connecting server to me was not example.com but foo.com Would hophigh help me out with this - see who originally sent the email? What is the downside to HOPHIGH=1 other than more dns work and if that is the case is it negligible? What is its real purpose? Thanks! -Nick Hayer >> Perhaps a filter that checks the reverse DNS entry, such as >> "REVDNS -10 CONTAINS .example.com"? > >For sure: This will work. But as I understand this will have the same result as with >IP counterweights: The counterweight is static and I have to adapt manualy the >changing listings of IP blacklists. Today this IP-blocks (or REVDNS names) are listed >in only two blacklists. Tomorrow they can be listed in 8 or 10 blacklists and my >static counterweight is far too low. > >This is also the reason why I've asked some weeks ago if it would be possible to >query http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch by specifiing my own filter-list of IP >blacklists (that I currently use in my cfg file). So it would be much much easier to >check manualy what's the actual situation and what counterweight I have to assign. >"Better" would be if I can post the ip4r- and rhbl-part of my filter file and the >spam database lookup script would calculate and return "my personal result". >"Amazing" would be if I'm able to BYPASS certain IP ranges. That give me the >possibility to use any external IP blacklist and if I have the opinion that certain >IP-ranges in their list are "wrong" then I can simply bypass them. > >I know: The problem are the ISPs that are not able to get permanently out of the >blacklists. But what should I do? Call them and explain what they should do? >I think we all are using declude because we have decided to go in a defensive >position and fight spam. If I really want to persuade ignorant mailserver admins (and >maybe also spammers) then it would be better to become a preacher... ;-) > >Markus > > > >--- >[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > >--- >This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To >unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found >at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
