On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 22:03, mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote: > Le 13/10/2010 00:43, Costin Gusa a écrit : >> >> see, mouss, that's the reason in my systems this email would have >> never got a chance for "220 OK", even without any external spam filter >> in place. >> >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 22:42, The Doctor<doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> >> wrote: >>> >>> Doctor Who saying in the 1970s. >>> >>> What do I need to reverse. >>> >>> Tried another MTA and got reports that people were not getting e-mail. >>> >>> All right switch back. >>> >>> Forgot that the 'sendmail' was not the correct one. >>> >>> No problem, just use the postfix sendmail. >>> >>> Hmm!! No mail is getting delievered. >>> >>> What did I forget? >>> -- >>> Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici >>> doc...@nl2k.ab.ca >>> God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist >>> rising! >>> http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee >>> Are you a real human: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1334.cfm >>> >> ...because of the following header: >> >> Received: from localhost (localhost.nl2k.ab.ca [127.0.0.1]) >> by doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2030912CFC90 >> for<postfix-users@postfix.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:01:47 -0600 >> (MDT) > > then you're wrong. localhost is ok in an internal header. while you can > check internal headers for spam signs, you should play on the safe side > here. if you're new to the game, go on. but believe me, it is a "marathon" > and you should not run too fast in the beginning! do not try to stop any one > spam at the cost of spending your day and at the cost of blocking legitimate > mail. the goal is not to block _all_ spam. the goal is to make the costs of > dealing with spam low enough. > >
eh, sorry for rushing too fast, I red the wrong header, I misthought that host said "helo localhost" to cloud9 :) but anyway, 95% of my rejects are on helos+rbl+user unknown
