R: R: R: R: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
Most of these static customers are legitimate business networks running their own mail server, and have neither the need nor desire to relay their mail through Comcast's SMTP servers. I think your general idea is very good, but you're reaching a little too far with this one. 'No need nor desire', that's not really any good excuse. Use a relay or find your mail rejected, I'd say. He doesn't need any excuse. From his point of view (and from mine too), you would need it. There is no RFC stating that mail not conforming to your requirements have to be dropped. I well understand adding reasonable penalty scrores to them, not stopping them at once. However, the customer is your. So... --- Giampaolo Tomassoni - IT Consultant Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4 I-53044 Chiusi (SI) - Italy Ph: +39-0578-21100 MAI inviare una e-mail a: NEVER send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andreas
R: R: R: R: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
...omissis... I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for keywords). My rules are really looking more for is this a _client_ host, not is this a dynamic host. That one check looks for dynamic, but I'm not interested in exempting anyone because they're static. They've still got a hostname that looks like an end-client, and an end-client shouldn't be connecting to other people's mail servers. Any end-client that connects to someone else's email server should be treated like it's a spam/virus zombie. I'm not comfortable with this: the border between an end-client and a server is really unclean. Also, what about and end-client server? :) I don't understand the push toward using the ISP's mail server to send mail. I guess that an end-client may legitimally run its own mail server without relaing its outgoing mail to its internet provider. I can, however, well understand the need for a legitimate mx to be tied to a static address. That make sense for identification purposes. What's wrong with small businesses running their own mx? Just guessing: isn't that the blame about this originates from large ISPs that just want to tight their customers? --- Giampaolo Tomassoni - IT Consultant Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4 I-53044 Chiusi (SI) - Italy Ph: +39-0578-21100 MAI inviare una e-mail a: NEVER send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SORBS uses the following Internet Draft for determining whether networks are statically or dynamically by rDNS: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-namin g-schemes-00.txt Right. Also, SORBS goes a bit (too?) further by including the pool word in RDNS as a dynamic address indicator. This sounds not that correct to me. I've also thought about adding pool to my list of keywords ... I just thought it might be a little too generic.
