[email protected] said: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:48:53AM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, John Meissen wrote: > > > > >In my personal opinion, yes. 90% of the spam I reject is based on no > > >reverse-DNS being available. My assumption is that any legitimate server > > >will have properly configured reverse-DNS configured. > > > > Thanks, John. That's good enough for me. > > So - how do you configure Spamassassin to do that? >
I don't. One of the issues I have with most "traditional" spam handling methods (like Spamassassin) is that even if it's caught/filtered you still have to look at it, just in case you really want it. My system uses a sendmail milter to process the incoming connection during the SMTP handshaking, and if it's classified as spam the attempt is rejected with an apprpriate status/message. That way I never see it, and a legitimate sender will get it bounced back by THEIR mail server. If it was a false positive they can contact me by some other method and I can then whitelist them. I currently filter based on IP address/subnet, sender name/domain and pattern matching of the reverse-DNS string against local site-wide and user-specific blacklists, and a couple of RBLs that are still operating. If I'm not mistaken Postfix and Sendmail can be directly configured to reject based on no reverse-DNS. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
