On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 03:26:48PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> I discovered that I was rejected legitimate emails from sbcglobal.net because
> they're listed in rfc-ignorant.org for both
> postmaster@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Both addresses are valid now, but
> apparently no one had notified rfc-ignorant.org.)
>
> I didn't want to whitelist sbcglobal.net, but I wanted the email to come
> through, so I changed the penalty score for rhsbl
> from 3.3 to 3.1 (just enough to get in under the wire unless there are other
> problems.)
> However, I *thought* I could correct the problem by adding a GOOD score to
> PM_RFCI and/or ABUSE_RFCI. When I tried that,
> it didn't work. Is this a bug?
No bug. Not yet implemented as the priority for ham-scores in rhsbl results
was _very_ low. Fixing that soon. Meanwhile you should instead give postmaster
and abuse rhsbls very low scores (0.1 or so) or even remove it. I'm still
about to throw those two lists out.
--
Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
Munich, Germany
____________________________________________________________
Policyd-weight Mailinglist - http://www.policyd-weight.org/
