I can't speak for anyone else, but those two filters have been very good for my users. On a typical day, 30-60% of all connections to my server are blocked with DENIED_IP_IN_CC_RDNS. Another 5-20% are blocked by DENIED_IP_IN_RDNS. I've had to whitelist a few IP addresses with bad rDNS names but that's been very rare so far (less than 5 total).
However, servers with larger user populations and more international correspondence might have different experiences. -- Sam Clippinger Marcin Orlowski wrote: > Hi, > > Anyone by any chance did sort of research if DENIED_IP_IN_*_RDNS helps > his users or causes more problems? I formerly thought that this is > more helpful, as IP in RDNS is most likely appear for home dsls, dialups > and other stuff not supposed to run smtp server i shall trust, and if > it's my users mail netline, then they shall authenticate while talkign > to me anyway. But now I see that some telecoms offer dsls with static > IPs (contrary to dyniamic one, rotated 24hs, that is addressed to home > users) which is primarily used by companies, and therefore it's less > likely for them to be spam source (due to botnes, zombies etc). I even > saw a data center which named their rack hosts that way. I therefore > think that it might be extremely useful to try to build a kind of > database of providers who one may consider whitelisting even, they would > otherwise fall into IP_IN_RDNS or IP_IN_CC_RDNS trap. Any thoughts? > > Marcin > _______________________________________________ > spamdyke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users > _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
