--On October 20, 2012 5:27:09 PM +0000 Mike's unattended mail
<mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf> wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman <jer...@adaptr.nl> wrote:
DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are
"serious" but either incompetent or on a cost-saving agenda, and then
there are those who are "serious", and have enough budget to use
DNSBLs competently.
The incompetent use of DNSBLs:
This group uses DNSBLs as originally intended - to *block*
connections. This reckless approach (in effect) guarantees denial
of service on the sole basis of IP address, neglecting more
effective criteria. Not only is the judgement as to whether the
message is spam or ham cheapened, it violates EFF principles.
The competent use of DNSBLs:
This group uses DNSBLs not to block, but rather to aggregate DNSBL
tests with other more effective characteristics of the message.
Instead of foolishly allocating all weight of the message treatment
to one single factor, the finding is appropriately weighted with
other factors. And even if the message is judged to be spam through
a more careful process, /it is still delivered/, and rightly so.
Keep in mind that the OP called for the "ultimate" mail server, not
the cheapest one. To me this implies that quality *trumps* revenue
and cost-savings (as opposed to being one of many profit-driven
factors).
and a proper EHLO is actually an RFC requirement.
You should read the requirement. The RFC certainly does not insist
that senders buy a domain name. The RFC allows for senders who do not
own a domain name to supply their literal address (aka IP address) for
the EHLO. Such a message is RFC compliant, but blocked by those who
are uninformed about this and implement reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname.
It is indeed a common misconception that the RFC requires a hostname
for the EHLO.
So now we get to the crux of the problem. He runs his mail server without
a hostname and has been placed on DNSBLs at times. This has caused his
mail to be rejected, and he's irritated about that.
Here's another view. I run a mail server that has a proper hostname,
reverses correctly and use spf. We've never had our mail rejected and
never been on a DNSBL.
But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else comply
with my concept of what is "right".
You might consider doing that.
Paul Schmehl (g...@stovebolt.com)
The Stovebolt Geek
The Net's Oldest and Most Complete
Resource for Antique Chevy and GM Trucks
http://www.stovebolt.com
