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

Re: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question

Expand Messages
  • /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 1 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 2 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 3 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.