On Thu, 03 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 09:46 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > > On 2-Sep-2009, at 23:19, Clunk Werclick wrote: > > > zgrep "address not listed" /var/log/mail.info > > > Sep 3 05:26:59 ....: warning: 222.252.239.56: address not listed for > > > hostname localhost > > > dig -x 222.252.239.56 > > > > > > ... > > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > > > ;56.239.252.222.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR > > > > > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > > > 56.239.252.222.in-addr.arpa. 83651 IN PTR localhost. > > > ... > > > > This sort of BS is best dealt with in your MTA, not in SpamAssasin. > > > Sure, I just posed the question out of curiosity -not to start a war.
No war! Your question is completely legitimate. I simply noticed you were using Postfix and offered an MTA solution in case you were using 2.6. Nothing in my message suggested that Postfix "is the only MTA out there". > > I believe the directive in postfix is reject_unknown_client_hostname. > As I understand it, this will not implicitly block PTR = 'localhost' > whilst leaving others alone. It may be possible in 2.6?? but I'm not > sure. reject_unknown_client_hostname will reject when rDNS = localhost, but that restriction also has other implications. Make sure they are right for you; don't feel you have to use something just because of LuKreme's advocacy. As for doing this in SA, I hope one of the gurus can offer a solution. But from a quick scan of these[1][2] pages, some variant of the following might suffice: # Warning: UNTESTED! header LOCAL_RDNS X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted =~ /^[^\]]+ rdns=localhost /i describe LOCAL_RDNS bogus localhost rDNS score LOCAL_RDNS 10.0 [1] http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules [2] http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustedRelays -- Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net>
