Robert - elists wrote:
I think he meant whitelisting when the rDNS is verified (FcrDNS) by a
"double lookup". That's what a postfix check_client_access will do.
[snip]
Mouss
I think I wanted to whitelist inside my greylist the google IP netblocks
space.
They have a zillion outbound MX s
>
> I think he meant whitelisting when the rDNS is verified (FcrDNS) by a
> "double lookup". That's what a postfix check_client_access will do.
>
> [snip]
Mouss
I think I wanted to whitelist inside my greylist the google IP netblocks
space.
They have a zillion outbound MX servers and some cli
Benny Pedersen escreveu:
whitelist_dnsname in policyd does it, i will test if postfix does the same,
thanks for pointing it out :-)
policyd does whitelist_dnsname based on reverse passed by postfix.
policyd itself does NOT reverse lookups.
The good is that postfix only passes rev
Robert - elists escreveu:
Since they seem to have zillions of outbound mx machines
Are most of you whitelisting these blocks ?
has anyone noticed if these are pretty static or do these TXT records change
frequently or otherwise?
the only whitelist i apply to gmail is whitelist their s
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 15:30 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
D Hill wrote:
[snip]
In Postfix:
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
Reject the request when the client IP address has no address->name
mapping.
reject_unknown_client_hostname
Reject the request when 1) the
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 16:15 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:07PM +, D Hill wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 15:42 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:29PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward
D Hill wrote:
[snip]
In Postfix:
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
Reject the request when the client IP address has no address->name
mapping.
reject_unknown_client_hostname
Reject the request when 1) the client IP address->name mapping fails,
2) the name->address mappi
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:07PM +, D Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 15:42 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:29PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Confirmed_reverse_DNS
>>>
>>> i know this fact, but OP ques
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 at 15:42 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:29PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Confirmed_reverse_DNS
i know this fact, but OP question only based on reverse :/
One should always assume "reverse" means
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 02:02:29PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Confirmed_reverse_DNS
>
> i know this fact, but OP question only based on reverse :/
One should always assume "reverse" means _confirmed_ reverse. I don't know
why anyone would assume other
On Tue, June 3, 2008 12:38, mouss wrote:
> I think he meant whitelisting when the rDNS is verified (FcrDNS) by a
> "double lookup". That's what a postfix check_client_access will do.
whitelist_dnsname in policyd does it, i will test if postfix does the same,
thanks for pointing it out :-)
Benn
On Tue, June 3, 2008 12:34, Henrik K wrote:
> Do you have access to google's DNS?
only use it from spf
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Confirmed_reverse_DNS
i know this fact, but OP question only based on reverse :/
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cu
Robert - elists wrote:
Since they seem to have zillions of outbound mx machines
I did this in response to some email latency issues.
dig google.com txt
google.com. 31 IN TXT "v=spf1
include:_netblocks.google.com ~all"
then i
dig _netblocks.google.com txt
_netblocks
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, June 3, 2008 08:32, Henrik K wrote:
What I am talking about is not greylisting google based upon those addresses
and sending right to SA for scoring
try spf, and skip greylist based on pass, well still not good since spammers
can olso use spf, but still
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 11:56:41AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On Tue, June 3, 2008 08:32, Henrik K wrote:
>
> >> What I am talking about is not greylisting google based upon those
> >> addresses
> >> and sending right to SA for scoring
>
> try spf, and skip greylist based on pass, well st
On Tue, June 3, 2008 08:32, Henrik K wrote:
>> What I am talking about is not greylisting google based upon those addresses
>> and sending right to SA for scoring
try spf, and skip greylist based on pass, well still not good since spammers
can olso use spf, but still alot better then below here
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:33PM -0700, Robert - elists wrote:
> Ok
>
> Yellow then.
>
> What I am talking about is not greylisting google based upon those addresses
> and sending right to SA for scoring
Why would you care about the IP addresses? Just whitelist by *.google.com.
You shouldn't
On Mon, June 2, 2008 21:20, Robert - elists wrote:
> Are most of you whitelisting these blocks ?
no whitelist here
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Ok
Yellow then.
What I am talking about is not greylisting google based upon those addresses
and sending right to SA for scoring
- rh
Robert - elists wrote:
Since they seem to have zillions of outbound mx machines
I did this in response to some email latency issues.
dig google.com txt
google.com. 31 IN TXT "v=spf1
include:_netblocks.google.com ~all"
then i
dig _netblocks.google.com txt
_netbloc
Since they seem to have zillions of outbound mx machines
I did this in response to some email latency issues.
dig google.com txt
google.com. 31 IN TXT "v=spf1
include:_netblocks.google.com ~all"
then i
dig _netblocks.google.com txt
_netblocks.google.com. 47 IN
21 matches
Mail list logo
