On Wednesday 21 February 2007 00:48, Charles Butcher wrote: > On 21/02/2007, at 09:48, Tim Meadowcroft wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 February 2007 21:01, Charles Butcher wrote: > > And that's the type of rule that frustrates me... I operate on a > > dynamic IP, > > but have an MX record that points at that same dynamic IP (and an SPF > > record to boot). > > I suppose its folks with your kind of situation that make it a bit too > harsh just to reject dynamic hosts out of hand. > > But as long as you send me clean messages they'll get through :-) > And the SPF lookup will be taken into account by spamassassin as well > and improve your chances even more.
Thanks - yes, you doing it with SA gives me a chance to redeem myself - it's those who reject the connection at way before then that annoy me. I wasn't meaning to have a go at you - sorry if it read like that, it's the way some people employ the metric rather than the metric itself (or the act of describing/advocating it) that I was having a go at. Cheers -- Tim
