Hi All
I have been in touch with my ISP and they are now able to give me a fixed IP
So I have gone for that
I am currently awaiting the propagation of the update to the DNS that has
changed the generic blah.blah.static.address to reflect the name of my mail
server
once this has done things should get better...
My ISP has also applied to SORBS to de-list the netblock as they currently
have this listed even though it is marked as static.
hopefully this will solve the problems I am having
Bill ...
Once I have seen the DNS update would you mind running our little test again
?
Kind Regards
Hill
----- Original Message -----
From: "W B Hacker" <wbh@???>
To: "exim users" <exim-users@???>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [exim] SORBS
> Chris Lear wrote:
>> * Chris Lightfoot wrote (10/11/06 11:12):
>>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:44:38PM -0000, Hill Ruyter wrote:
>>>> But does that really mean I should not be allowed to have a mail server
>>>> ?
>>>> or rather does that mean I should therefore be classed as a second
>>>> class
>>>> SMTP Citizen
>>>> because I have struck a particular deal with my ISP ?
>>> yes, according to the enthusiasts for these lists.
>>>
>>
>> Those enthusiasts would advise that you use your ISP's mail relay as a
>> smarthost for outgoing mail. You haven't said whether that's a
>> possibility, but assuming it is, it will fix your problem. [It's what I
>> do].
>>
>> But this story does add some weight to Chris' crusade against denying
>> based on blacklists.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Perhaps so. An RBL can be wrong, out of date, or simply inappropriate.
>
> But the RFC supports denying based on rDNS fail, so no RBL needed if the
> arriving IP has no PTR and the HELO is either not a fqdn at all, or is a
> fqdn
> that belongs to other-than (at least) the same <domain>.<tld> as the
> connection IP.
>
> Witness the massive attempts to forge major-ISP HELO (which will resolve)
> when a
> spambot is actually arriving from a compromised WinBox in a residential
> adsl
> pool (some of which now ALSO 'resolve' - witness /24's assigned to a PTR).
>
> Sorry... many of us cannot *afford* the 'be generous in what you accept..'
> approach any longer on that score.
>
> There are just too many such arrivals, and too few 'unintentional'
> violaters
> among them.
>
> Best we can do is delay hard-denial until we can check manual and auto
> whitelists, and be willing to 'make a hole' for known correspondents on
> BL'ed
> networks.
>
> Even that is a fiddle.
>
> There isn't much lacking in the RFC's.
>
> What is lacking is recognition that we need to apply them.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
>
