blacklists and archiving
ka at pacific.net
Tue Apr 24 21:47:22 IST 2007
Scott Silva wrote:
> Hugo van der Kooij spake the following on 4/24/2007 12:32 PM:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, David Vosburgh wrote:
>>> Dave Shariff Yadallee - System Administrator a.k.a. The Root of the
>>> Problem wrote:
>>>> This came up in my Spamcheck headers vosburgh at dalsemi.com
>>>> SpamAssassin (not cached, score=5, required 5,
>>>> RCVD_IN_WHOIS_BOGONS 5.00)
>>>> Hoe this helps.
>>> Thanks for the heads-up. Never heard of that RBL, but they have my
>>> attention now :-).
>> But they are overrated in this case. What does anyone care how I number
>> my network inside? So why attach 5 points just because someone happens
>> to use an internal network number on his internal network?
>> I also do documentation and 192.0.2 does not overlap with any other
>> network so far so my VPN's are clean as well.
> That rule shouldn't be firing unless a bogon address is the last relay. It is
> perfectly valid to have a bogon address for your internal network, in fact it
> is probably encouraged.
bogons are only bogons until they are not.... or "bogons could cause
swapping".. Yes, too much Rocky and Bullwinkle. Point is not all bogons
are created equal. 192.0.2 is rfc 3330 reserved. Others bogons may be
allocated; thus the swapping.
> I see some traffic on this mis-firing since spamassassin 3.1.3 came out on the
> spamassassin list, and I think there is an oldish bug report on it.
More information about the MailScanner