> Bob Proulx a écrit :
> > 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 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote:
> The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of
> "dynamic", I suggest: "UMO" for "Unidentifiable Mailing Object". whether
> static-ip-.... is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from
> such hosts, and we can't report/complain to a domain, since the domain
> is that of the SP (and getting SPs to block abuse sources have proven
> vain).
I'd be glad to see if there's any difference in percentage of spam from
dynamic and static (generic) IP addresses.
There's also __RDNS_STATIC rule which excludes those "static" from being
considered as dynamic. There should be one for HELO rules too -
It would make me angry if I got scored more just because my server is
properly configured and uses proper helo which is the same as RDNS
(some helo checks have higher score than RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH)
--
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.
Enter any 12-digit prime number to continue.
