On 9/16/2013 5:41 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
Received: from mail02.corp.ena.net (unknown [96.4.3.90])
by mr11.mail.ena.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C091480688
for redac...@domain.com; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
My forward DNS lookup for this host is an internal IP address
Dave Jones:
On 9/16/2013 5:41 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
Received: from mail02.corp.ena.net (unknown [96.4.3.90])
by mr11.mail.ena.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C091480688
for redac...@domain.com; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
My forward DNS lookup for this host is an
Dave Jones:
On 9/16/2013 5:41 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
Received: from mail02.corp.ena.net (unknown [96.4.3.90])
by mr11.mail.ena.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C091480688
for redac...@domain.com; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
My forward DNS lookup for this host
Dave Jones:
Received: from mail02.corp.ena.net (unknown [96.4.3.90])
by mr11.mail.ena.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C091480688
for redac...@domain.com; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
Wietse:
First, I can't fail to notice that the PTR record for 96.4.3.90
says
The past few weeks or so my Postfix relays have been showing unknown
in the logs and headers for some (not all) hosts causing a hit on the
SpamAssassin RDNS_NONE rule. These servers have a local caching DNS
server on them that forward to another pair of caching DNS servers
that run BIND and
Dave Jones:
The past few weeks or so my Postfix relays have been showing unknown
in the logs and headers for some (not all) hosts causing a hit on the
SpamAssassin RDNS_NONE rule. These servers have a local caching DNS
server on them that forward to another pair of caching DNS servers
that
On 9/16/2013 5:41 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
Received: from mail02.corp.ena.net (unknown [96.4.3.90])
by mr11.mail.ena.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C091480688
for redac...@domain.com; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
My forward DNS lookup for this host is an internal IP address
