On 09/18/2017 09:12 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/16/2017 4:36 PM, Chris wrote:
I'm also seeing issues with ISIPP which is in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf. I've
attached the message I sent them as well as their reply. Another issue
I noticed with ISIPP is
Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving
'ns1.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53
Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving
'ns2.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53
My network is up
chris@localhost:~$ time host isipp.com
isipp.com has address 67.227.187.192
isipp.com mail is handled by 5 smtp.secureserver.net.
isipp.com mail is handled by 0 concerto.isipp.com.
isipp.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.
real 0m0.866s
user 0m0.008s
sys 0m0.004s
chris@localhost:~$ time host isipp.com
isipp.com has address 67.227.187.192
isipp.com mail is handled by 0 concerto.isipp.com.
isipp.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.
isipp.com mail is handled by 5 smtp.secureserver.net.
real 0m0.010s
user 0m0.008s
sys 0m0.000s
Problem, or something I shouldn't concern myself about?
Good question. Perhaps another rate-limit issue or they block dynamic IPs.
I took this off-list by accident but Chris has low volume and uses a
Dynamic IP. I wonder if ISIPP is similar to barracuda in that it should
be considered for removal from the default rules. Anyone have any feedback?
regards,
KAM
I am receiving many hits on *_IADB_* rules just fine recently for emails
from constantcontact.com and others.
--
David Jones
