I agree with you guys that the sender should be doing the right thing, but they're not, and this is only one example of a dozen I have. My only workaround so far has been to add them to the broken MTA white list, but that's a horrible solution. I would like something to accept those cases, specially because some of them are business related, and my customers are not happy about having their email being delayed. Thank you.
Mauricio Teixeira
(sent from mobile, sorry for my brevity)
I also agree, this is the proper result.
Legit institutions that send mail should have their act together. (properly configured dns)
Also, if someone is running a mail server off a residential line, then they should be ashamed and or not trusted to begin with.
Bill
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Marcus Schopen lists-yahoogroups@... [milter-greylist] <milter-greylist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-09-06 20:41, Mauricio Teixeira mauricio.teixeira@...
> [milter-greylist] wrote:
>>>>> # Greylisting Hosts Without Reverse DNS
>>>>> racl greylist domain
>>>>> /^\[[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\]$/ delay 1h
>>>
>>> In my rulesets this adds a big score malus to delay longer in
>>> greylists, and by the time this mail might be accepted sender may be
>>> already in DNSBL.
>>
>> I find it interesting that this topic just happened while I was
>> scratching my head on a similar situation.
>>
>> I've seen cases where the reverse does not match the forward, and
>> milter-greylist is filtering them anyway. Example:
>>
>> milter-reject: RCPT from unknown[203.235.210.192]: 451 4.7.1
>> Greylisting in action, please come back in 00:13:18; bad reverse DNS;
>> from=<blah@...> to=<blah@...> proto=ESMTP
>> helo=<mymail.skcc.com [1]>
>>
>> This is my rule:
>> racl greylist domain
>> /^\[[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\]$/ delay 120m msg
>> ";Greylisting in action, please come back in %R; bad reverse DNS"
>>
>> 203.235.210.192 resolves to mymail.skcc.com [1]
>>
>> but
>> mymail.skcc.com [1] resolves to 203.235.210.190
>>
>> So it seems like milter-greylist is getting confused, and thinks the
>> fact that the reverse does not match the forward means there is no
>> reverse.
>>
>> How can I tell milter-greylist to just accept those cases when there
>> is a reverse, even if it doesn't match the forward?
>
> Am Dienstag, den 06.09.2016, 15:41 -0300 schrieb Mauricio Teixeira
> mauricio.teixeira@...m [milter-greylist]:
>>
>> How can I tell milter-greylist to just accept those cases when there
>> is a reverse, even if it doesn't match the forward?
>
>
> I'm not sure if there is an RFC, which says forward DNS and rDNS must
>; match, but it's common practise for a well maintained sending host that
> a lookup should be forward confirmed in result. If not you might tagged
> as spam. Milter-greylist's result for your example IP 203.235.210.192 is
> right to my mind, because 203.235.210.192 ->; mymail.skcc.com ->
> 203.235.210.190 which doesn't match, even though there is a rDNS.
>
> Ciao!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Marcus Schopen <lists-yahoogroups@localguru.de>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>