On 22 Oct 2008, at 12:56, Richard Foley wrote:
...
spam_ip_regex file:
/[ax]dsl.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_XDSL Email Rejected. You appear
to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address.
/client.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_CLIENT Email Rejected. You
appear to
be connecting from a Dynamic IP address.
/cable.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_CABLE Email Rejected. You appear
to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address.
/dial.*\..*\..*/i 450 AUTO_DIAL Email Rejected. You appear
to be
connecting from a Dynamic IP address.
This looks fairly useful. Does anyone else have any experience with
this
approach, who might be able to offer insight into whether it's valid
or not?
My experience is on the butt-end of such filters - they're a sure fire
way to annoy me if I'm sending you mail.
I run a Postfix server on my home ADSL connection and it is extremely
frustrating to have mail rejected because of that. The common response
of admins to complaints about this is "you should use your ISP's mail
server", but really it is just nice to have a a proper "receipt" for
emails one has sent.
If a message appears undelivered (it may have been incorrectly have
been classified as spam by the recipient's filter) then, using
Postfix & connecting directly, I can say "the mailserver listed in
your domain's MX records acknowledged receipt for this message at
$time on $date; here's the log entry". If I use my ISP's relay then
the blame is uncertain.
I have to admit that I can't say I've ever had to use this "proof of
delivery" - perhaps if I reported a missing mail (through their
servers) to my ISP they would help track it down, but I am not very
optimistic. It is quite aggravating, however, to be treated like a
second-class citizen when I am following RFC. Some major ISPs do not,
and yet they get away with it just because one can't simply ignore
their whole huge customer base.
Stroller.
