4. I sent myself an email from gmail, who definitely
>> does have correct RDNS, and then ran the source
>> (https://pastebin.com/gE0qauf1) through SpamAssassin with a user_prefs
>> score set for RDNS_NONE
>>
>> The debug info show no RDNS for any relay:
>>
>
source
> (https://pastebin.com/gE0qauf1) through SpamAssassin with a user_prefs
> score set for RDNS_NONE
>
> The debug info show no RDNS for any relay:
>
> Sep 26 07:16:07.890 [21117] dbg: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Internal: [
> ip=10.27.26.11 rdns= helo=mx1.pub.mai
Assassin with a user_prefs
score set for RDNS_NONE
The debug info show no RDNS for any relay:
Sep 26 07:16:07.890 [21117] dbg: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Internal: [
ip=10.27.26.11 rdns= helo=mx1.pub.mailpod3-cph3.one.com
by=mailstorage0.cst.mailpod3-cph3.one.com ident= envfrom= intl=1
id=SNkcMEA
> It's better to just score RDNS_NONE at 0.
Seems I set that in the ./spamassassin/user_prefs file. I found one in
/root another in /home/spamfilter. So I did them both.
joe a.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:22:41 -0400
Joseph Acquisto wrote:
> RW 10/17/12 8:25 PM >>>
> >On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:32:27 -0400
> >Joseph Acquisto wrote:
> >
> >> > Frustrating, as I could swear I did this with them, just some
> >> > months ago.
> >> >
> >> > joe a.
> >>
> >> Just wondering,
RW 10/17/12 8:25 PM >>>
>On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:32:27 -0400
>Joseph Acquisto wrote:
>
>> > Frustrating, as I could swear I did this with them, just some
>> > months ago.
>> >
>> > joe a.
>>
>> Just wondering, should not being a "trusted_networks" negate that
>> check or modify that weigh
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:32:27 -0400
Joseph Acquisto wrote:
> > Frustrating, as I could swear I did this with them, just some
> > months ago.
> >
> > joe a.
>
> Just wondering, should not being a "trusted_networks" negate that
> check or modify that weight?
>
> But then, I just checked and I h
> I fear this may be due to the way I get my mail. The ISP just
> informed me that I am not allowed to setup a PTR record for that
> (or any) account.
>
> At the moment, I am at a loss.
>
> Frustrating, as I could swear I did this with them, just some
> months ago.
>
> joe a.
Just wond
>>> On 10/16/2012 at 6:25 PM, Lutz Petersen wrote:
>> > Wondering about this detection:
>> >
>> > "2.4 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with
>> > no
> rDNS"
>
> I saw this sometimes in mails deliv
> > Wondering about this detection:
> >
> > "2.4 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no
> > rDNS"
I saw this sometimes in mails delivered from external where people
have sent their mail within an internal lan to for example
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:25:15 -0400
Joseph Acquisto wrote:
> Wondering about this detection:
>
> "2.4 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host
> with no rDNS"
>
> I see this on *all* SPAM marked email some of which are from
> legitimate se
On 16/10/12 16:25, Joseph Acquisto wrote:
Wondering about this detection:
"2.4 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no
rDNS"
Yes,
I see this on *all* SPAM marked email some of which are from legitimate
senders. I have set my internal boxes as t
Wondering about this detection:
"2.4 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no
rDNS"
I see this on *all* SPAM marked email some of which are from legitimate
senders. I have set my internal boxes as trusted and internal in the config
file, but still
--On Monday, September 29, 2008 11:52 +0100 Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
- there may be a mismatch (PTR exists but doesn't resolve back to IP)
I don't know of an MTA that removes rDNS from the Received: header if
that occurs. do you?
Sendmail. The name is not shown if there
Justin Mason wrote:
mouss writes:
Justin Mason wrote:
>[snip]
>
> In fairness -- if you drop mail with no rDNS, you are dropping 3.6% of
> legit email in general, going by the test results for our RDNS_NONE
> rule... ;)
It just came to my mind that RDNS_NONE does not mean
mouss writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> > In fairness -- if you drop mail with no rDNS, you are dropping 3.6% of
> > legit email in general, going by the test results for our RDNS_NONE
> > rule... ;)
>
> It just came to my mind that RDNS
Justin Mason wrote:
>[snip]
>
> In fairness -- if you drop mail with no rDNS, you are dropping 3.6% of
> legit email in general, going by the test results for our RDNS_NONE
> rule... ;)
It just came to my mind that RDNS_NONE does not mean the client does not
have a reverse DNS,
Hi
I've got a problem with botnet.
First of all, it seems to fail to resolve this IP even tough if I run
host 194.145.123.133 on this server, it resolves correctly to
dmserver04.dannemann.com
But then it assumes the rdns is the ip itself and hits the ipinhostname
which is totally inappropriate.
; Lately I seem to be dealing with a lot of small businesses with
> poorly set-up mail servers, and no rDNS. Sigh.
>
On the consoling side, they'll have to fix that sooner or later.. much
of the civilized world will not accept email at all from a server with
no RDNS. Major ISPs include
I was wondering if SA could be modified to take an IP address
for the second argument to whitelist_from_rcvd as well as a
domain/host name string.
Lately I seem to be dealing with a lot of small businesses with
poorly set-up mail servers, and no rDNS. Sigh.
It would be useful to not bounce
20 matches
Mail list logo
