On 02/08/2013 11:37 AM, Gary Gendel wrote: > On 02/08/2013 01:19 PM, Eric Shubert wrote: >> >> On 02/08/2013 10:16 AM, Lutz Petersen wrote: >>> Again: >>> >>> It is a very _bad_ idea to block hosts with the keyword dhcp in the rdns >>> name. >>> A lot of static hosts (hostingcenter etc.) have this keyword in their rdns >>> and >>> they all are static. >>> >>>> 74-142-212-17.dhcp.insightbb.com (74.142.212.17) >>> This is listed in the cbl. Only because blacklists need some short time to >>> detect >>> emitting spam ips it is not worth to create filters that gives you al lot >>> of false >>> positives. >>> >>> Lutz Petersen >>> >> I guess I was one of the unfortunate few who got the email before it was >> listed in the RBLs. :( >> >> I see what you mean, given that all dhcp addresses aren't necessarily >> dynamic. I commonly use dhcp to assign fixed (non-dynamic) addresses. >> >> I suppose that using the keyword "dynamic" would be safe. It wouldn't >> have caught this one though. > > Sorry, I've seen a lot of "static" domains that are really "dynamic" and > visa-versa. Spam control can be a hair-pulling experience. I used to > hand-roll my own, tried and discarded many such rules. Spamdyke allowed > me to replace it all. The few that get past Spamdyke are mostly caught > by SpamAssassin by processing the content of the message. The very > small number that get through I don't lose sleep over anymore. > > Gary >
Yeah, spamdyke's "the bomb". Preaching to the choir here. :) There seems to be a fewer more getting through lately than there used to be though. Used to be near zero, and now I'm noticing maybe one a day. Not so bad really, but I think the spammers are catching on to some things. It's a continual cat-n-mouse game though. -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
