On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:39:48AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Robert Fournerat put forth on 8/19/2010 4:46 PM: > > Quoting Noel Jones <njo...@megan.vbhcs.org>: > > > >> Same here. reject_unknown_client_hostname is too strict, but > >> reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname rejects lots of obvious spambots > >> without resorting to an RBL lookup. The false-positive rate is close > >> enough to zero that I would not consider removing this restriction. > > > > Call me a BOFH, but I have no sympathy for mail servers > > that do not pass the FCRDNS test. > > Agreed. Given that the majority of consumer broadband providers in the US > assign rDNS to even all their consumer IP addresses, there's no reason for a > legit mail sending host to not have rDNS.
Same here, in Hungary, we can reject about 80% of the incoming SMTP transactions and still only some (usually one or two) complaints per month and even that case we always make the other MTA's sysadmin to use correct rDNS settings then, so it's very usefull ... But sure, it is only my opinion ...
