Stroller a écrit :
>
> 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.
>
What I am working on now is this:
- if name (PTR or helo) looks dynamic, then do:
reject_unknown_helo_hostname
check some DNSBLs (that I don't check for other mail)
more checks (I am still experimenting with this)
- if helo looks dynamic, then be more strict (including
reject_unknown_client).
The rationale is that some people can't chose their rDNS, but they can
chose their helo. and if it can be done without FPs, then it reduces the
number of DNSBL queries.
I am still playing with this, and if you can share your reject logs (ip,
rdns, helo), then I would be gratefuL If in addition you are ready to
run a script against other logs (to detect FPs), then it's even better.
contact me offlist if you're willing to participate.
