Re: WHITELIST VETO and DNSBL lookups

2014-09-06 Thread Wietse Venema
li...@rhsoft.net: > Am 07.09.2014 um 01:56 schrieb Wietse Venema: > > li...@rhsoft.net: > >> postscreen_whitelist_interfaces = !, static:all > >> > >> in case you have a honeypot MX on a interface which always leads at least > >> in a temporary reject wouldn't it be beneficial to skip the RBL test

Re: WHITELIST VETO and DNSBL lookups

2014-09-06 Thread li...@rhsoft.net
Am 07.09.2014 um 01:56 schrieb Wietse Venema: > li...@rhsoft.net: >> postscreen_whitelist_interfaces = !, static:all >> >> in case you have a honeypot MX on a interface which always leads at least >> in a temporary reject wouldn't it be beneficial to skip the RBL tests >> and just reply with the

Re: WHITELIST VETO and DNSBL lookups

2014-09-06 Thread Wietse Venema
li...@rhsoft.net: > postscreen_whitelist_interfaces = !, static:all > > in case you have a honeypot MX on a interface which always leads at least > in a temporary reject wouldn't it be beneficial to skip the RBL tests > and just reply with the "450 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable" I want to

WHITELIST VETO and DNSBL lookups

2014-09-06 Thread li...@rhsoft.net
postscreen_whitelist_interfaces = !, static:all in case you have a honeypot MX on a interface which always leads at least in a temporary reject wouldn't it be beneficial to skip the RBL tests and just reply with the "450 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable" ___