Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-24 Thread SM
At 11:07 24-02-2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: I'm referring to other RFCs such as 1651 which says: That's an obsoleted RFC. It might be better to refer to RFC 5321 (Section 4.4) for information about the Received: header. Regards, -sm

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-24 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 2/24/2013 12:58 PM, SM wrote: At 13:42 21-02-2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Unless betting for minor sums such as a beer or a happy meal, I generally won't get into RFC compliance arguments with DFS. My reading was similar though there are some other RFCs that extend SMTP and say things lik

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-24 Thread SM
At 13:42 21-02-2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Unless betting for minor sums such as a beer or a happy meal, I generally won't get into RFC compliance arguments with DFS. My reading was similar though there are some other RFCs that extend SMTP and say things like "if you use ESMTP, you have to a

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 2/21/2013 4:36 PM, David F. Skoll wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:26:46 -0500 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: But I do believe it's generally accepted that one of the primary original uses for rDNS was for received headers in SMTP. I don't think anything requires it. Someone on this list will kno

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread David F. Skoll
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:26:46 -0500 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: > But I do believe it's generally accepted that one of the primary > original uses for rDNS was for received headers in SMTP. I don't > think anything requires it. Someone on this list will know for sure. My reading of RFC 5321 is t

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 2/21/2013 2:51 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote: From: "Kevin A. McGrail" Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:07:20 -0500 On 2/21/2013 10:36 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > And how is this ISP's issue related to RFCs? The RFC does not mention > word > "trusted" A fair point th

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Jeff Mincy
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:36:18 +0100 >On 2/21/2013 9:03 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote: >>Well, I trust the network not to lie. This is more of an omission On 21.02.13 10:26, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >Your Clinton-esque logic likely doesn't apply h

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Jeff Mincy
From: "Kevin A. McGrail" Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:07:20 -0500 On 2/21/2013 10:36 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > And how is this ISP's issue related to RFCs? The RFC does not mention > word > "trusted" A fair point that I didn't explain clearly enough. The RFC

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 2/21/2013 10:36 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: And how is this ISP's issue related to RFCs? The RFC does not mention word "trusted" A fair point that I didn't explain clearly enough. The RFCs cover received headers for SMTP

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 2/21/2013 9:03 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote: Well, I trust the network not to lie. This is more of an omission On 21.02.13 10:26, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: Your Clinton-esque logic likely doesn't apply here ;-). The land of RFC's works to avoid this type of logic in a language I call RFC-eeze.

[Somewhat OT] Procmail replacement (was Re: rdns in received header)

2013-02-21 Thread David F. Skoll
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:26:32 -0500 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: > Frightening indeed. Procmail still gives me nightmares. Yes. I replaced Procmail with Mail::Audit: http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/Mail-Audit-2.227/lib/Mail/Audit.pm and now my local delivery agent filter is much easier to configure

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 20.02.13 20:51, Jeff Mincy wrote: My local ISP (rcn.com) reconfigured their email servers. The 69.168.97.77 hop does not seem to be doing rdns lookups on the previous hop. For example, I get these two received headers at the trust boundary: ... Received: from mx.rcn.com ([69.168.97.

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 2/21/2013 9:03 AM, Jeff Mincy wrote: Well, I trust the network not to lie. This is more of an omission Your Clinton-esque logic likely doesn't apply here ;-). The land of RFC's works to avoid this type of logic in a language I call RFC-eeze. See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt whi

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Jeff Mincy
From: "Kevin A. McGrail" Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:46:40 -0500 On 2/20/2013 8:51 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote: > ... > > This leads to various bad things (RDNS_NONE & broken WHITELIST_FROM_RCVD) > > Is there anything in SpamAssassin that can deal more elegantly with > this p

Re: rdns in received header

2013-02-21 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 2/20/2013 8:51 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote: ... This leads to various bad things (RDNS_NONE & broken WHITELIST_FROM_RCVD) Is there anything in SpamAssassin that can deal more elegantly with this particular problem? Perhaps Some sort of please_fill_in_rcvd_rdns type option? Off the cuff, the point