On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:42:02AM CEST, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> said: > 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? >
No, I do not. But I had misunderstood you. -- Erwan
