Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
Fix your own domain's over-zealous behaviors first. Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> >>> I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same >>> problem - invalid HELO. >>> >>> * 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should >>> * 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO >>> >>> Received: from 88.102.6.114 (67.kcity.telenet.cz [194.228.203.67]) >>> by 8.hotelulipy.cz (Postfix) with SMTP id <censored> >>> for <censored>; <date> >>> >>> I think that combination above hits way too much. >>> > > On 20.02.09 08:56, Matt Kettler wrote: > >> Why is a bogous HELO being generated in the first place? i.e.: why is an >> address literal used, but not the correct address literal? >> > > I guess this happenns for hosts behing NAT, that do not know the real IP > address under which they are accessing the internet. > > >> I've not seen a legitimate mail client do this, so I'm actually rather >> curious as to what happened. In the set0 mass-checks, this rule had a >> S/O of 0.996, which is *VERY* good. >> > > I've just seen another one... > > However the main problem is that most HELO rules fire independently together > >
