Re: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question
- /dev/rob0 a écrit :
> On Sunday 01 November 2009 12:24:54 mouss wrote:sorry, I was talking about static IPs. obviously, there is no point in
>> Simon Morvan a écrit :
>>> Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
>>>> 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?
whitelisting a dynamic IP.