On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2 Oct 2018, at 9:36, Rob McEwen wrote:
SIDE NOTE: I don't think there was any domain my message that was
blacklisted on URIBL - so I can't explain the "URIBL_BLOCKED", but that
only scored 0.001, so that was innocuous. I suspect that that rule is
malfunctioning on their end, and then they changed the score to .001 - so
just please ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.
On 02.10.18 11:48, Bill Cole wrote:
No, "URIBL_BLOCKED" means that the URIBL DNS returned a value that is
supposed to be a message to a mail admin that they are using URIBL wrong
A mail filtering system that gets URIBL_BLOCKED hits is broken. A mail
filtering system that gets them chronically is mismanaged.
Nonsense. There is no such implication here. While URIBL_BLOCKED may and
most of the time apparently does mean that system uses DNS server shared
with too many clients, any system that receives and checks too much mail may
get URIBL_BLOCKED just because they have crossed the limit, withous using it
wrong or being broken.
And just to actually provide useful information to the OP:
Tell them that they need to set up a local, recursive,
***NON-FORWARDING*** DNS server for the use of SA (and likely their MTA).
Searching for URIBL_BLOCKED in the mailing list archives will cover it in
*excruciating* detail. It's a VFAQ.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Win95: Where do you want to go today?
Vista: Where will Microsoft allow you to go today?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
551 days since the first commercial re-flight of an orbital booster (SpaceX)
