On 19-Aug-2010, at 13:08, D G Teed wrote:
The only place I've seen which publicly talks about
the reverse DNS requirement is AOL.
Craigslist requires that the reverse DNS match EXACTLY the mail server name.
So, if your mailserver doubles
as a dns server and your primary rDNS point to
On Aug 23, 2010, at 11:32 AM, LuKreme wrote:
On 19-Aug-2010, at 13:08, D G Teed wrote:
The only place I've seen which publicly talks about
the reverse DNS requirement is AOL.
Craigslist requires that the reverse DNS match EXACTLY the mail server name.
So, if your mailserver doubles
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
Noel, pf:
Thanks for your suggestions and comments. I also had the same
questions and its good to see that others used
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname without too many
false-positives.
Now I will enable it on my production server.
Regards,
--
Klaus Engelmann
CCNA CCDA - CSCO10971632
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
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:39:48AM CEST, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
said:
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
Erwan David put forth on 8/20/2010 4:23 AM:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:39:48AM CEST, Stan Hoeppner
s...@hardwarefreak.com said:
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
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:42:02AM CEST, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
said:
Erwan David put forth on 8/20/2010 4:23 AM:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:39:48AM CEST, Stan Hoeppner
s...@hardwarefreak.com said:
Robert Fournerat put forth on 8/19/2010 4:46 PM:
Quoting Noel Jones
Zitat von Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
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
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:14 AM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
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
From: D G Teed
Subject: How common is reverse DNS checking?
Out of all of the things we do to restrict spam,
the only one with a steady trickle of false positives is
the host lookup not passing reverse DNS check.
reject_unknown_client_hostname = gives problems
On 8/19/2010 2:15 PM, p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
From: D G Teed Subject: How common is reverse DNS checking?
Out of all of the things we do to restrict spam,
the only one with a steady trickle of false positives is
the host lookup not passing reverse DNS check.
Thanks for the responses and tip on reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
I've made the switch to that and it seems to catch many unmapped IPs.
I half suspected there was something less stringent I could go for,
and had not noticed that variant. We had only reject_unknown_client
from older
Quoting Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
On 8/19/2010 2:15 PM, p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
From: D G Teed Subject: How common is reverse DNS checking?
Out of all of the things we do to restrict spam,
the only one with a steady trickle of false positives is
the host lookup not passing
14 matches
Mail list logo
