On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 12:29:39AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > senderA = your .hp. com
> > heloA = mh .hp. m0.net
> >
> > The sender, resp. MX match with 'hp' against the helo
> >
> >
> > senderB = mail.communications.sun.com
> > heloB = mh.sunmicrosystemsinc.m0.net
> >
> > the sender, resp. MXes of sun.com do not match stringwise with
> > 'sunmicrosystemsinc'
> >
>
> I think I understand now:
> mail ~ # dig +short in mx your.hp.com
> 10 imh.merchantmail.net.
> mail ~ # dig +short in mx hp.m0.net
> 10 imh.merchantmail.net.
>
>
> mail ~ # dig +short in mx mail.communications.sun.com
> 10 imh.delivery.net.
> mail ~ # dig +short in mx sunmicrosystemsinc.m0.net
> mail ~ #
>
>
> Is that right? The first one has the proper MX record for the sender domain
> and for the used HELO/EHLO, while the second one has no MX record on the
> HELO/EHLO.
No. The point is, that sender argument and sender mx records didnt match
stringwise with the helo argument plus the client was in a (non-default) rbl.
as such policyd-weight did perform even more intense checks whether the
client is resp. for the sender - which failed.
--
Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
Munich, Germany
____________________________________________________________
Policyd-weight Mailinglist - http://www.policyd-weight.org/
