mouss wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
James Gray writes:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was
from:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now you are using:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOTH of those domains point to an MX that has a CNAME to:
smtp.mas.viperplatform.net.au
So I use one mail client and occasionally forget to set the correct
profile to send as.. sorry.
No. None of the domains have any references to smtp.mas... as an MX
record. They all point to mail.mas... and they all have a default
TTL of 38400 for the zone.
Besides, this still doesn't change my original point that SORBS have
a habit of listing addresses (justifiably or not) then attempt to
extract money to remove the listing. That's just extortion, not a
good RBL.
It's worth noting that SpamAssassin has *never* used the SORBS sublist
that requires this payment. We do not endorse that "pay-to-remove"
concept.
Also, folks -- regardless of how RFC-anal his DNS records are, that
doesn't change the fact that SORBS DUL is listing his IP space
incorrectly. This is *definitely* a false positive for SORBS. So please
stop rattling on about that end of things.
How do you know that sorbs is listing his IP space incorrectly? he
didn't show what IP space he was talking about.
According to SORBS:
Netblock: 202.147.75.0/26 (202.147.75.0-202.147.75.63)
Record Created: Thu May 11 02:23:32 2006 GMT
Record Updated: Thu May 11 02:23:32 2006 GMT
Additional Information: [MU] Dynamic/Generic IP/rDNS address, use your
ISPs mail server or get rDNS set to indicate static assignment.
The entire 202.147.74.0/23 block has *NEVER* been part of a dynamic
range and was purchased as part of our /19 back in 1999 (or maybe
2000...before my time with this company anyway) when that address range
was first made available by APNIC. Some of the other class-C's in our
/19 have been used for a long-since-sold ISP business, but not the
202.147.74.0/23 block.
There's only a few externally exposed MTA's in that range (although our
mail cluster is quite large). The ones really biting us on the arse are:
202.147.74.51 (also listed on DUHL, but on a 202.147.74.0/26)
202.147.75.20
202.147.75.21
Do your own queries and whois lookups...but these address blocks are
INCORRECTLY LISTED BY SORBS and they refuse (yes, I've heard from them)
to remove them. Apparently because our inbound and outbound MTA's don't
use the same addresses! I have no idea what crack-monkey at SORBS wrote
that, but that was the response we got in relation to our request to
remove our IP's.
I hope that clears it up :)
Cheers,
James
