> > ...omissis... > > I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for > keywords). My rules are really looking more for "is this a _client_ > host", not "is this a dynamic host". That one check looks for > "dynamic", but I'm not interested in exempting anyone because they're > "static". They've still got a hostname that looks like an end-client, > and an end-client shouldn't be connecting to other people's mail > servers. Any end-client that connects to someone else's email server > should be treated like it's a spam/virus zombie.
I'm not comfortable with this: the border between an end-client and a server is really unclean. Also, what about and end-client server? :) I don't understand the push toward using the ISP's mail server to send mail. I guess that an end-client may legitimally run its own mail server without relaing its outgoing mail to its internet provider. I can, however, well understand the need for a legitimate mx to be tied to a static address. That make sense for identification purposes. What's wrong with small businesses running their own mx? Just guessing: isn't that the blame about this originates from large ISPs that just want to tight their customers? ----------------------------------- Giampaolo Tomassoni - IT Consultant Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4 I-53044 Chiusi (SI) - Italy Ph: +39-0578-21100 MAI inviare una e-mail a: NEVER send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> SORBS uses the following Internet Draft for determining > whether networks > >> are statically or dynamically by rDNS: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-namin > >> g-schemes-00.txt > > > > Right. Also, SORBS goes a bit (too?) further by including the > "pool" word in RDNS as a dynamic address indicator. This sounds > not that correct to me. > > > > I've also thought about adding pool to my list of keywords ... I just > thought it might be a little too generic. >
