Ok here are the two headers again, both messages originated from the same computer, smtp server in outlook express is set up to use aloak.ca (which is not in a dialup block).
The only difference besides content is the recipient address, the only difference in content was they also contained recipient addresses... I ran this a dozen times to make sure it wasn't an isolated case, and was incluing the recipient address in the content for fater reference.
Terry...
--------HEADER FROM RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK MESSAGE---------
From - Wed Sep 24 14:06:52 2003
X-UIDL: 1064426808.23355_0.london.interface.on.ca
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 23349 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2003 18:06:46 -0000
Received: from igloo.aloak.ca (216.220.38.195)
by london.interface.on.ca with SMTP; 24 Sep 2003 18:06:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 26040 invoked by uid 10000); 24 Sep 2003 18:06:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neetas) (65.48.80.27)
by igloo.aloak.ca with SMTP; 24 Sep 2003 18:06:37 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Anita Milnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: test 13
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:08:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0062_01C382A5.45E02CC0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-rc6-interface_1.3
(1.208-2003-09-19-exp) on london.interface.on.ca
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.7 required=4.0 tests=HTML_70_80,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK autolearn=no version=2.60-rc6-interface_1.3
X-Spam-Level: **----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- HEADER FROM MESSAGE THAT APPEARS CORRECT ---------
From - Wed Sep 24 14:24:40 2003
X-UIDL: 1064427870.23568_0.london.interface.on.ca
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 23562 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2003 18:24:28 -0000
Received: from qanuk.aloak.ca (216.220.38.194)
by london.interface.on.ca with SMTP; 24 Sep 2003 18:24:28 -0000
Received: from igloo.aloak.ca (igloo [216.220.38.195])
by qanuk.aloak.ca (8.12.9/8.12.2) with SMTP id h8OIOJRj009321
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:24:19 -0400
Received: (qmail 32404 invoked by uid 10000); 24 Sep 2003 18:24:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neetas) (65.48.80.27)
by igloo.aloak.ca with SMTP; 24 Sep 2003 18:24:18 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Anita Milnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: test 14
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:25:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006B_01C382A7.BD61FA10"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-rc6-interface_1.3
(1.208-2003-09-19-exp) on london.interface.on.ca
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=4.0 tests=HTML_70_80,HTML_MESSAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-rc6-interface_1.3
X-Spam-Level:Ryan Moore wrote:
If there are recieved-from headers from the recipient's mail system, then they may get checked in the rbl's depending on how deep they are. The recipient can use the 'trusted_networks' option that was added in 2.60 to get around that problem. I don't have the start of the thread on the machine I'm writing this from so hopefully I understood what was going on ;]
Ryan Moore ---------- Perigee.net Corporation 704-849-8355 (sales) 704-849-8017 (tech) www.perigee.net
Terry Milnes wrote:
But you are missing the point, mail is being identified as RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK when it is the recipient who is in the dial up block, not the sender.
The sender is on the rogers network using aloak smtp/pop3 servers, sending a message to a domain that is in the dial up block.
The message should NOT be tagged as RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK because the "received from" is from aloak.
I thought I might have a problem explaining this, take a look at the headers I supplied, a real close look and you should be able to see what I mean.
As for the Rogers Network, there is a problem there as well, they sell commercial accounts that did not have these restrictions you mention, yet over the last few weeks these commercial accounts are being treated the same as the residential. I am calling them tomorrow about this issue, it costs three times as much for the commercial services, hopefully their policies haven't changed.....
Thanks for the response btw.
Terry
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
