>From: Bill Cole <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> >Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:41 PM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>On 24 Nov 2015, at 13:47, David Jones wrote: >> Could this be dependent on the MTA used? I am using Postfix >> which puts in Received headers like this: >> >> Received: from econnect.dmsgs.com (unknown [8.224.216.57]) >> >> That IP has a PTR record but it doesn't match the SMTP HELO of >> econnect.dmsgs.com so Postfix is putting in the 'unknown' causing >> the RDNS_NONE hit on more than just no rDNS. >Incorrect. The HELO name (econnect.dmsgs.com) is not involved at all in >why Postfix puts 'unknown' inside the parentheses. Thank you for that clarification. However what you describe below is one part of FCrDNS (a.k.a full circle DNS) check. The second part would be the PTR record matching the SMTP HELO. So this still means that the RDNS_NONE check is more than just a missing PTR record when using Postfix. >Postfix puts "unknown" there because the PTR resolves to >smtp-55-unassigned.dmsgs.com but smtp-55-unassigned.dmsgs.com has no A >record resolving back to 8.224.216.57. It appears that the people >running DNS for 216.224.8.in-addr.arpa and dmsgs.com (apparently Digital >Messaging Solutions, Inc. of Tuscon AZ, USA) have screwed up. Many >nearby IPs also allocated to them have PTRs that resolve to names that >have As resolving back to the IP, so presumably they aren't entirely >incompetent...
