tersson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Steven Dickenson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Giampaolo Tomassoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: R: R: R: Relay Checker Plugin (code review please?)
Nix wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006, Andreas P
Nix wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006, Andreas Pettersson stated:
Steven Dickenson wrote:
I can't agree with this. Many small businesses in the US get just these kind
of static connections from broadband ISPs.
Comcast, for example, has all of their static customers using rDNS that would
fail your tes
On 31 Oct 2006, John Rudd verbalised:
> And, while I may be a little unyielding wrt to people whose ISPs are
> like Telecom Italia, I'm not unsympathetic. I think, in this case, if
> Italy did get mass quarantined by the rest of the world, it might
> cause enough of an uproar to force Telecom Ital
On 1 Nov 2006, Andreas Pettersson stated:
> Steven Dickenson wrote:
>> I can't agree with this. Many small businesses in the US get just these
>> kind of static connections from broadband ISPs.
>> Comcast, for example, has all of their static customers using rDNS that
>> would fail your test
> > 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
Steven Dickenson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd wrote:
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 n
> I think based on all of the feedback I'm getting on this, I'm going to
> have a config option for something like
> "relaychecker_skip_statichostname=1" with 1 being the default. It will
> cause both the "IP in hostname" and "dynamic hostname" checks to be
> skipped if "\bstatic\b" is in the
Steven Dickenson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd wrote:
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 i
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:09 AM, John Rudd wrote:
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
John Rudd wrote:
> I've considered the exact opposite (adding static to the check for
> keywords). [...] 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
> Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
> > We have
> > rather successfull anti-spam legislation and, except for
> botnets, really
> > little spam originates here.
> >
>
> Right ... but it's those botnets that this plugin is trying to catch.
I use greylisting for this, and it works great to me. Also, it
On Tue, October 31, 2006 1:26 pm, Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
[snip]
> I know that the problem lays in Telecom Italia's hands, but we don't have
> much
> choice (we have formal competition, but it's really a monopoly).
> I'll just be glad if our whole country won't be mass quarantined. We have
> rath
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
RELAY_CHECKER (at least one rule had been triggered. According to your code
would score 4 by default);
RC_NORDNS (scores 1);
RC_BADRDNS (scores 1);
RC_BADDNS (scores 1);
RC_IPINHOSTNAME (scores 1);
RC_DYNHOSTNAME (scores 1);
Agreed. This way the plugin c
Massimiliano Hofer wrote:
We have
rather successfull anti-spam legislation and, except for botnets, really
little spam originates here.
Right ... but it's those botnets that this plugin is trying to catch.
And, while I may be a little unyielding wrt to people whose ISPs are
like Telecom I
> > I would prefer not to have to deal with a single, computed
> RELAY_CHECKER score, but with many different ones for each of the
> triggered cases. This way it would be easier to tune scores from
> this plugin.
> >
> > To me, your plugin could trigger the following tags:
> >
> > RELAY_CHECKE
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's li
>
> ...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
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 12:02 pm, John Rudd wrote:
> > Telecom Italia is used to put RDNSes with something like this:
> >
> > host1-84-static.48-88-b.business.telecomitalia.it.
>
> They would not be banned from the e-mail world.
Not every provider in Italy gives us this luxury. Not even every
Alain Wolf wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places even
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places
even before
that plugin came out. But th
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's li
> On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >> Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
> >> his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
> >>
> >> But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places
> even before
> >> that plugin came out. But they g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31.10.2006 09:32, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>> Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
>> his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
>>
>> But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places even before
>>
> Same here in Switzerland, at least one of the main national ISPs calls
> his clients nn-nn-nn-nn.static.cablecom.ch
>
> But we had already rejections and spam-tags from many places even before
> that plugin came out. But they give you a reverse DNS entry of your own
> hostname if you ask for.
W
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31.10.2006 09:13, * Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>> So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
>> advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
>> would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out
> So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
> advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
> would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
> putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's list of plugins.
> So, if people could take a look at it, test it, see if it does what it
> advertises, and see if it's as accurate as my experience indicates, I
> would appreciate getting feedback. If it pans out, I'll see about
> putting it in a tar ball, and submitting it to the wiki's list of plugins.
I di
27 matches
Mail list logo
