Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>>> On 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote:
The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of
"dynamic", I suggest: "UMO" for "Unidentifiable Mailing Object". whether
static-ip- is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from
> > On 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote:
> >> The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of
> >> "dynamic", I suggest: "UMO" for "Unidentifiable Mailing Object". whether
> >> static-ip- is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from
> >> such hosts, and we can't report/c
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
>> Bob Proulx a écrit :
>>> The following header line:
>>>
>>> Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
>>> [96.254.126.11] by
>>> windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
>>>
>>> Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR ru
> Bob Proulx a écrit :
> > The following header line:
> >
> > Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
> > [96.254.126.11] by
> > windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
> >
> > Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
> >
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> if this is a client of yours, you might help them get a VALID RDNS and
> setup the FQDN for their mail server.
> (more likely, its a zombie spambot anyway, )
Not related to me in any way. The mail message generated from there
was legitimate. It came *to* a client of
Bob Proulx a écrit :
> The following header line:
>
> Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net [96.254.126.11]
> by
> windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
>
> Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
>
> $ perl -le 'if
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:51:46 +0200
Per Jessen wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
> > addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
> > assigned?
>
> Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
> > addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
> > assigned?
On 18.08.09 16:51, Per Jessen wrote:
> Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling them apart.
there is
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP
> addresses get the same processing as if they were dynamically
> assigned?
Probably not, but there's no guaranteed way of telling them apart.
> Of course it's much better to have personalised DNS n
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>> The following header line:
>>
>> Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
>> [96.254.126.11] by
>> windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
>>
>> Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
>>
>> $ perl -l
Bob Proulx wrote:
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
[96.254.126.11] by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if ("static-96-254-12
The following header line:
Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net [96.254.126.11] by
windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
$ perl -le 'if ("static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.veri
12 matches
Mail list logo
