It appears that the effectiveness of filtering out known-bad HELO/EHLO
has dropped somewhat in the past few months:
http://people.spodhuis.org/phil.pennock/img/exim-reject.2007-09-19.png
http://people.spodhuis.org/phil.pennock/img/exim-reject.2007-09-19.ylog.png
Of course, this is in absolute n
ager
Information Services, Staffordshire University
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Pennock
> Sent: 19 September 2007 10:32
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Subject: [exim] HELO/EHLO reject rates
>
> It appears t
ROGERS Richard wrote:
> Interesting observation. Unfortunately I don't keep historical data for
> individual rejection reasons (possibly I should), but my feeling (and
> it's only that) is that there has been an increase in the use of domain
> literals as HELO/EHLO strings. Although (AFAIK) these
Just to jump in with my $0.02 here:
On 9/19/07, ROGERS Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd love to reject wherever there is no rDNS, but I think there would be
> too many false positives involved. (I know that some here take the view
> that this is not a false positive, but our users are like
Darton Williams wrote:
Just to jump in with my $0.02 here:
On 9/19/07, ROGERS Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd love to reject wherever there is no rDNS, but I think there would be
too many false positives involved. (I know that some here take the view
that this is not a false positive,
ROGERS Richard wrote:
> On a slightly related issue - I have an idea that the hit rate from RBLs
> (we prinicpally use MAPS+ and Spamhaus) may not be as high is it was a
> couple of months ago. Does anyone else have the same feeling (or any
> data to confirm/deny)?
I noticed this to. The number of
- Original Message -
From: "Darton Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exim Users"
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [exim] HELO/EHLO reject rates
> I agree, no rDNS would be a good rejection criterion if we could
> assume everyone
Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> I hard block for no or generic rDNS and on HELO's that do not appear
> to be a valid domain name, on my "company" server and set SA scoring
> VERY high on "customer" servers (so it can be easily adjusted down on
> a per domain basis),
Phil, I would be interested to s
Hello Darton,
>> message that is not spam, and does not originate from a known source of
>> spam, as one that should be delivered). That's not to say it can't be
>> given a score in SpamAssassin though.
> I agree, no rDNS would be a good rejection criterion if we could
> assume everyone was foll
On 9/24/07, Marcin Krol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Darton,
>
>
> >> message that is not spam, and does not originate from a known source of
> >> spam, as one that should be delivered). That's not to say it can't be
> >> given a score in SpamAssassin though.
>
> > I agree, no rDNS would be a
Darton Williams wrote:
> It would probably be best to do this directly in SA by increasing the
> score for the NO_RDNS rule in your local.cf, e.g.:
>
> score NO_RDNS 5.0
>
> The default is 0.5.
Isn't it RDNS_NONE? default of 0.1 in SA 3.2.3
And yep, way OT for this list :)
--
The Exim Manual
Ted Cooper wrote:
> Darton Williams wrote:
>> It would probably be best to do this directly in SA by increasing the
>> score for the NO_RDNS rule in your local.cf, e.g.:
>>
>> score NO_RDNS 5.0
>>
>> The default is 0.5.
>
> Isn't it RDNS_NONE? default of 0.1 in SA 3.2.3
>
> And yep, way OT for
> >> score NO_RDNS 5.0
> >>
> >> The default is 0.5.
> >
> > Isn't it RDNS_NONE? default of 0.1 in SA 3.2.3
> >
> > And yep, way OT for this list :)
>
> Yes, my SpamAssassin 3.2 has RDNS_NONE, default 0.1 as you dscribe.
> Looking for it I also found RDNS_DYNAMIC, which I think I may increase
> fro
13 matches
Mail list logo
