Re: RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS and "deep headers"

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.06.2016 um 13:29 schrieb RW:

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:30:32 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:

it is *plain wrong* doing *any* deep header tests on received
headers and you will *never* achieve enough to outweight the
fallout of hit innocent victims

they're blocks of static addresses

surely since "CSS lists both IPv4 addresses (/32) and IPv6 addresses
(/64)" and /32 is not a block but a single IP?

It doesn't really matter whether the list internally uses addresses or
address blocks, the important thing is that they aren't dynamic pool
addresses.

i know that CSS is not a dial-up list
that's why PBL exists



one hour later you or anybody else could end in get the very same IP

but that don't mean when my machine is hacked, sending snowshoe spam and it *has* a dynamic IP that it don't get listed at css.spamhaus.org for that reason you where not that snowshoe spam sender who triggered listing, but with the RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS behavior your mail would treatet as if you would have been the spammer while you use your submission server and did nothing wrong

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature