--On 22 December 2007 22:59:00 +0000 Graeme Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 23:48 +0100, Renaud Allard wrote: >> Isn't this leading to many false positives? > > That's a semantic argument not related to Exim (or, indeed, the > operation of any other MTA). If David's local policy is to reject > messages sent by hosts listed in the DNSBLs he lists, that's his > decision. Messages rejected under those criteria could only be described > as false positives if he disagrees with their listing, and (again) > that's something for discussion elsewhere. > > Please let's not descend into discussions of the definition of SPAM. > There be dragons :) > > Graeme It certainly does relate to operation of Exim, and it's specific to Exim since the recipe won't work in any other MTA. A recipe is provided for people *other* than David to consider using, and it's worth warning those people that use of the recipe may lead to unintended consequences. Specifically, many DSBLs list machines that are on netblocks not permitted to operate MTAs. It's quite normal for people on those netblocks to use Hotmail. It's probably not the intention of most MTA operators to prevent people from making quite ordinary use of webmail servers. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex x3148 -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
