Linux has won

Jarod Wilson jarod at wilsonet.com
Wed Dec 15 14:40:15 EST 2010


On Dec 15, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> <rozzin at geekspace.com> wrote:
>> I heard that SORBs just started blocking the subnets used by the company
>> hosting my mail-server as part of November 2010 DUHL expansion,
>> and so some ISPs' customers can't receive e-mail from people using that
>> hosting service. I thought GMail was supposed to be smarter than that,
>> though.
> 
>  Practically everybody good these days use weighted scanning combined
> with IP blacklisting for severe offenders.  Google/Postini included.
> But if your MX IP address is considered "dynamic" for whatever reason,
> it is going to get weighted very highly towards the spam end of the
> spectrum.  Practically all mail sent directly from dynamic hosts is
> spam.  Whether or not Google should be using SORBS to make that
> determination, I have no idea.
> 
>  Are you saying you've got a static IP host but the RBLs are flagging
> the IP address as dynamic anyway?


SORBS and/or one/some of the other block lists out there also flag my
Verizon FiOS business-class-with-static-IP connection as dynamic,
which is annoying, but doesn't really matter anymore, since I've gone
and outsourced my mail hosting to teh googles...

I have vague recollections that the heuristic might actually be more
based on "reverse-lookup doesn't match" than whether or not its an
honest to goodness dynamic IP. I was too lazy to ask verizon to add
reverse-lookups that matched my domain, so the reverse-lookups come
back as static-x-x-x-x.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. Which of course, if
read by humans, actually suggests pretty clearly that the address is
in fact not dynamic, but alas...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com





More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list