I catch and reject these at the MTA all day long using a sendmail milter.

Mike 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter H. Lemieux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 6:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: My IP address in HELO ?
> 
> > On Saturday 08 May 2004 16:12, Pat Masterson wrote:
> >>Does anybody have a rule to recognize my own IP in the HELO ?
> 
> Heinz Ulrich Stille wrote:
> > It's much simpler to let the mta reject the connection outright. No 
> > chance that there could come something good over it.
> 
> There are also many spams that use the recipient's IP address 
> as a hostname, so their Received headers look like this:
> 
> Received: from UNKNOWN(218.1.160.93), claiming to be "1.2.3.4"
>   via SMTP by mail.someplace.com, id smtpdZ0ZVgY; Wed May  5 
> 18:51:28 2004
> 
> where "1.2.3.4" is mail.someplace.com's IP address.  These 
> can't be caught at the SMTP level, so I have these SA rules:
> 
> header SENDER_CLAIMS_PRI_MX       Received =~ /claiming to be 
> "1.2.3.4/
> describe SENDER_CLAIMS_PRI_MX     Sender uses primary MX IP 
> as hostname
>  
> 
> header SENDER_CLAIMS_SEC_MX       Received =~ /claiming to be 
> "5.6.7.8/
> describe SENDER_CLAIMS_SEC_MX     Sender uses secondary MX IP 
> as hostname
>  
> 
> header SENDER_CLAIMS_DOMAIN       Received =~ /claiming to be 
> ".*someplace.com" via/i
> describe SENDER_CLAIMS_DOMAIN     Sender claims his server is 
> in our domain
> 
> where 1.2.3.4 and 5.6.7.8 are the IP's of the primary and 
> secondary MX server and "someplace.com" is replaced by your 
> domain name.  Most of the times when SENDER_CLAIMS_PRI_MX is 
> triggered, I also see SENDER_IP_NO_REVERSE.  This is a custom 
> rule that's triggered when the sending host has no reverse 
> resolution.  (It's keyed to something in reports from the 
> email proxy server I use, so it's not worth posting here.)  I 
> also see a lot of SPAMCOP_URI_RBL reports when 
> SENDER_CLAIMS_PRI_MX is triggered.
> 
> I score all these rules high enough that I'm sure anything 
> matching them will be marked as spam.  Since all of these 
> patterns indicate deception on the part of the sender, they 
> shouldn't ever appear in legitimate messages.
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> 
> 

Reply via email to