On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:47:07 -0700 "Steven Manross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I see everyone's concerns, and they are duly noted. Yes, real
> businesses have IPs in dynamic/DSL ranges for real reasons.
No doubt the huge price difference between 'residential-class' and
'business-class' service at certain ISPs ("I'm paying $200/month extra
for 5 static IP addresses, rDNS, and a different dead-end voicemail
phone support number? WTF?")
> I totally
> agree with that. (I'm a DSL customer at home and and have a "similar
> reverse lookup" and have a mail server there.) I don't want to ban
> these mails, but want to add to the total score. If this puts someone
> over the top, so be it. But, their mail already looked close to spam to
> begin with. Nuff said.
>
> Thanks for all the input.
Are you using network tests? If so, you may want to adjust the score of
RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK. In some ways this is weaker than matching on hostname
(DynaBlock either makes a best-guess at IP ranges or has ISP cooperation
in listing only dynamic allocations so they probably don't have them
all) though some ISPs don't differentiate static from dynamic pools so
you may be more likely to FP just testing the hostname.
Still, adding a fraction of a point for a quick regex check seems ok,
provided you're not checking the first Received header; that header
*should* contain the dynamic user's hostname if they route mail through
their ISP.
-- Bob
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
