Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question

Expand Messages
  • mouss
    ... AFAIK, the policy didn t change. but chances are that people who used to send directly have moved to a relay model. The PBL is used in many places. and
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Simon Morvan a écrit :
      > Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
      >>[snip]
      >>>
      >> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
      >> which has been very effective here.
      >>
      >>
      > The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
      > ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
      > changed, I'll give it another try.

      AFAIK, the policy didn't change. but chances are that people who used to
      send directly have moved to a relay model. The PBL is used in many
      places. and some large sites use more restrictive lists anyway. so
      insisting on sending directly only causes grief, and things are mostly
      likely to "get worse".

      I personally use dnswl.org. so users who get blocked by the PBL are
      invited to submit their IP to dnswl.org.


      >>> reject_rhsbl_sender dsn.rfc-ignorant.org,

      you find PBL policy too restrictive, yet you use a non-spam related
      list. anyway, your server your rules...

      >> [snip]
    • /dev/rob0
      ... A truly static IP address (with custom rDNS) on PBL can be removed by the user; there is a web form with automated checks and a manual review process. This
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sunday 01 November 2009 12:24:54 mouss wrote:
        > Simon Morvan a écrit :
        > > Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
        > >>[snip]
        > >>
        > >> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
        > >> which has been very effective here.
        > >
        > > The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
        > > ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
        > > changed, I'll give it another try.
        >
        > AFAIK, the policy didn't change. but chances are that people who used to
        > send directly have moved to a relay model. The PBL is used in many
        > places. and some large sites use more restrictive lists anyway. so
        > insisting on sending directly only causes grief, and things are mostly
        > likely to "get worse".
        >
        > I personally use dnswl.org. so users who get blocked by the PBL are
        > invited to submit their IP to dnswl.org.

        A truly static IP address (with custom rDNS) on PBL can be removed by
        the user; there is a web form with automated checks and a manual
        review process. This typically shouldn't take more than a day or two.

        If it's NOT static, why should it be whitelisted? When will it
        change? Are checks done to ensure that it's still under control of
        the dnswl.org. submitter?
        --
        Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
        "/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
      • Sahil Tandon
        On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Simon Morvan wrote: [blah blah] ... I thought you said your previous message was your last on this topic? Please, let s close this thread.
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Simon Morvan wrote:

          [blah blah]

          > And how am I supposed to send mail from my own mail server if I
          > don't trust my ISP mail relay nor have $$$ to have a colo space and
          > my own IP space ?
          >
          > And, Stan, you refuse mails from my ISP mail relay... (the second
          > biggest in France...)

          I thought you said your previous message was your last on this topic?
          Please, let's close this thread.

          --
          Sahil Tandon <sahil@...>
        • mouss
          ... sorry, I was talking about static IPs. obviously, there is no point in whitelisting a dynamic IP.
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            /dev/rob0 a écrit :
            > On Sunday 01 November 2009 12:24:54 mouss wrote:
            >> Simon Morvan a écrit :
            >>> Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
            >>>> [snip]
            >>>>
            >>>> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
            >>>> which has been very effective here.
            >>> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
            >>> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
            >>> changed, I'll give it another try.
            >> AFAIK, the policy didn't change. but chances are that people who used to
            >> send directly have moved to a relay model. The PBL is used in many
            >> places. and some large sites use more restrictive lists anyway. so
            >> insisting on sending directly only causes grief, and things are mostly
            >> likely to "get worse".
            >>
            >> I personally use dnswl.org. so users who get blocked by the PBL are
            >> invited to submit their IP to dnswl.org.
            >
            > A truly static IP address (with custom rDNS) on PBL can be removed by
            > the user; there is a web form with automated checks and a manual
            > review process. This typically shouldn't take more than a day or two.
            >
            > If it's NOT static, why should it be whitelisted? When will it
            > change? Are checks done to ensure that it's still under control of
            > the dnswl.org. submitter?

            sorry, I was talking about static IPs. obviously, there is no point in
            whitelisting a dynamic IP.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.