Erwan David put forth on 8/20/2010 4:23 AM: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:39:48AM CEST, Stan Hoeppner > <s...@hardwarefreak.com> said: >> Robert Fournerat put forth on 8/19/2010 4:46 PM: >>> Quoting Noel Jones <njo...@megan.vbhcs.org>: >>> >>>> Same here. reject_unknown_client_hostname is too strict, but >>>> reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname rejects lots of obvious spambots >>>> without resorting to an RBL lookup. The false-positive rate is close >>>> enough to zero that I would not consider removing this restriction. >>> >>> Call me a BOFH, but I have no sympathy for mail servers >>> that do not pass the FCRDNS test. >> >> Agreed. Given that the majority of consumer broadband providers in the US >> assign rDNS to even all their consumer IP addresses, there's no reason for a >> legit mail sending host to not have rDNS. > > Humm US is not alone on Internet...
You're full of wisdom Erwan. ;) The US is the single largest source of spam. We rank #1 every year, IIRC. The point was, since you missed it: The US sends the most zombie spam. The US has the most rDNS assigned to consumer IPs, which are the source of most of this zombie spam. Thus, checking for the existence of rDNS, which is what reject_unknown_reverse_cleint_hostname does, isn't really going to stop said zombie spam. In other parts of the world where providers don't assign rDNS to consumer IPs, then yes, this check helps. More and more providers around the world are assigning rDNS to their consumer IPs. Again, my entire point was that checking for the mere existence of rDNS is far less relevant in the spam blocking game that it once was. Do you dispute that? -- Stan
