Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 2 Mar 2018, at 0:48, Sebastian Arcus wrote: But why does SA have to expose a rule for each and every code IADB provides? So that users can implement their own policies if desired? So that different rules can have a more granular effect on the inbound email flow, without this being a

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com] -0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones > wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought > up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having > 7 different rules

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 01/03/18 19:04, John Hardin wrote: On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:

Re: IADB whitelist - again

On 03/02/2018 02:54 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still

Re: Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

On 03/02/2018 12:54 PM, Daniele Duca wrote: Hello list, apologies if this is not directly SA related. "Lately" I've started to notice that some (not saying names) VPS providers, when offering v6 connectivity, sometimes tends to not follow the best practice of giving a /64 to their customer,

Re: Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

On 02.03.18 09:58, Leandro wrote: Hi Danilele! Our DNSBL works with individual /128 IPv6 addresses: http://spfbl.net/en/dnsbl/ Even if the provider is offering less then /64 to customers, our DNSBL can list IPv6 of each one. how/who do you list when spammer starts rotating IPs in assigned

Re: Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

2018-03-02 10:08 GMT-03:00 Matus UHLAR - fantomas : > On 02.03.18 09:58, Leandro wrote: > >> Hi Danilele! Our DNSBL works with individual /128 IPv6 addresses: >> >> http://spfbl.net/en/dnsbl/ >> >> Even if the provider is offering less then /64 to customers, our DNSBL can >>

Re: Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

Hi Danilele! Our DNSBL works with individual /128 IPv6 addresses: http://spfbl.net/en/dnsbl/ Even if the provider is offering less then /64 to customers, our DNSBL can list IPv6 of each one. But do not use our DNSBL to reject messages. Use only for SA punctuation, higher points to 127.0.0.2.

Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

Hello list, apologies if this is not directly SA related. "Lately" I've started to notice that some (not saying names) VPS providers, when offering v6 connectivity, sometimes tends to not follow the best practice of giving a /64 to their customer, routing to them much smaller v6 subnets,