> > On 19.08.09 00:48, mouss wrote: > >> The name of the rule is worng, but the result is ok. Instead of > >> "dynamic", I suggest: "UMO" for "Unidentifiable Mailing Object". whether > >> static-ip-.... is static or not doesn't matter. a lot of junk comes from > >> such hosts, and we can't report/complain to a domain, since the domain > >> is that of the SP (and getting SPs to block abuse sources have proven > >> vain).
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > > I'd be glad to see if there's any difference in percentage of spam from > > dynamic and static (generic) IP addresses. > http://enemieslist.com/news/archives/2009/07/why_we_suspect.html it says something very close to nothing. from SA point of view, the ham/spam ratio is important and that is what I am curious about... > > There's also __RDNS_STATIC rule which excludes those "static" from being > > considered as dynamic. There should be one for HELO rules too - > > It would make me angry if I got scored more just because my server is > > properly configured and uses proper helo which is the same as RDNS > > (some helo checks have higher score than RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH) On 19.08.09 09:55, mouss wrote: > if your PTR is generic, then it is better to set the HELO to a > "non-generic" value. just make it resolve to the same IP. while it is > not always possible to set a "custom" rdns, there is no excuse for not > setting a "meaningful" HELO. I wouldn't say so. Automatic helo string is much easier to configure and requires less work than manual... Yes, with current SA setting it may be true. But since we are complaining about this, this ain't an answer... -- 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. Due to unexpected conditions Windows 2000 will be released in first quarter of year 1901
