> Bob Proulx wrote:
>> The following header line:
>>
>> Received: from static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
>> [96.254.126.11] by
>> windows12.uvault.com with SMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:26:40 -0400
>>
>> Hits the HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR rule. I tested it this way:
>>
>> $ perl -le 'if ("static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net" =~
>> /[a-z]\S*\d+[^\d\s]\d+[^\d\s]\d+[^\d\s]\d+[^\d\s][^\.]*\.\S+\.\S+[^\]]+/) {
>> print "Yes" } else { print "No" };'
>> Yes
>>
>> But the address doesn't appear to be in a dynamic block. And it
>> doesn't look like a dynamic address pattern to me.
On 18.08.09 05:37, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> says 'static', but, a serious question: is the mail server at that ip
> REALLY setup with a FQDN of
>
> static-96-254-126-11.tampfl.fios.verizon.net
another serious question: should IPs with statically assigned IP addresses
get the same processing as if they were dynamically assigned?
I don't think so. Dynamic IP addresses are often in dynamic blacklists and
other blacklists don't have value there, since spamming clients may reconnect
and get other IP.
> the helo_dynamic_ipaddr rule also catches 'static' ip addresses used by
> spambots that are operating on static workstation ip addresses.
>
> if this is a client of yours, you might help them get a VALID RDNS and
> setup the FQDN for their mail server.
> (more likely, its a zombie spambot anyway, )
Of course it's much better to have personalised DNS name than generic one,
but *DYNAMIC* should still not match, becausse the ip is just not dynamic.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!
