On 11/16/2005 12:21, Justin Knierim wrote: > Yeah, that would be from one of my emails. While it is true that header > won't resolve, I don't see it as being incorrect.
I'm not sure if I see it as being incorrect either. From what I understand, large userbase setups that use various levels of internal mail routers (that add Received: ) are pretty common. Also, I couldn't find that it's MUST NOT anyway (though maybe I didn't search long enough). My experience is that most spam received on the mail servers I run is not sent from private IP's. The vast majority seems to come from cable modem or dsl related IP's in the US and EU, most likely windows zombies. At any rate, they all have public IP's. Trolling though my mailbox, nearly all mails that have a private IP are valid. Then again, .cn and .kr and other large swaths of asia don't exist to me. Now, that certainly doesn't prove that it IS correct to have private IP's in mail headers, but it does say that flagging such mail as strongly possible spam is at least a little suspect (I would have a *lot* of false positives if I did that). Of course, everyone's spam situation is different; that's just mine. Also, some people will say that there's security risk in showing your internal IP range. My take is that any cracker worth his or her salt doesn't need to be shown that to be effective. ~Jason -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
