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

Re: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question

Expand Messages
  • mouss
    ... sorry, I was talking about static IPs. obviously, there is no point in whitelisting a dynamic IP.
    Message 1 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.