> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:19 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, RW wrote: > > > > I understand that Spamhaus doesn't recommend this, because dynamic IP > > > > addresses can be reassigned from a spambot to another user, but I added > > > > my own rule it does seem to work. In my mail it hits about 9% of my > > > > spam, with zero false-positives. > > > > On 13.07.09 14:22, Tony Finch wrote: > > > You will get false positives from senders that are using remote message > > > submission, and from some webmail users if their server puts the webmail > > > client IP address in the message headers. > > > > agreed, although, some kind of authentication should be done in either case, > > which should prevent the rules from hitting, but many ISPs and ESPs don';t > > push auth informations to Received: headers...
On 13.07.09 16:26, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > Do the RFC's state that they need to? yes, RFC4954 in section 7 does -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way.
