[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IP

Jan Eden <tech@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I recently checked my DMARC configuration using
> check-auth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and was surprised to learn that my mail
> server was regarded as highly trusted by Post25.com's SpamAssassin:
> -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI       RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, high
>                             trust
>                             [ listed in list.dnswl.org]
> But when I checked my listing at dnswl.org, my domain/IP were not found.
> What's more, Posteo's spam filter never applied one of the
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* to messages originating from my server, although Posteo
> is a dnswl.org customer.

I would be shocked if eden.one ended up in HI without you
knowing about it by way of applying, and highly surprised if it were HI
at all.  HI is things like bank servers that send alerts, very broad-brushy.

In general, RBLs have defenses against excessive queries, and sometimes
those end up being false results, on the theory that it's the only way
to get people to stop.  I'm not saying DNSWL has any mechanisms at all
for excessive queries -- just pointing out that a line showing a hit in
an SA log is not reliable evidence that the given IP/name is actually
listed, and given my current state of knowledge I would interpret your
evidence as making it much more likely there is a query issue than that
you were listed at HI.

Last seen might be the last legitimate (not-rate-limited) query, or
message in some QA surveillance network (pure speculation).  (I couldn't
find a last seen field.)

I looked up and you are now in DNSWL_NONE, which seems normal for a
personal domain.

I would proceed on the assumption that the posteo spam checker has or
had issues.

You are welcome to send me a private message and I'll tell you (offlist)
what my SA says about your DNSWL status.   Your on-list mail tells me
that the dnswl mailinglist host is in HI...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re: Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IPJan Eden <tech@xxxxxxxx>
Re: Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IP"Bernd H. Steiner" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IPJan Eden <tech@xxxxxxxx>