Re: Problem with @rhsbl?

2006-09-08 Thread Robert Felber
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/


Problem with @rhsbl?

2006-09-07 Thread Paul Schmehl
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?  Or do I not understand how the program works?  I assumed that BAD 
scores add to the penalty score and GOOD scores subtract from it.  While 
BAD scores do indeed add to the penalty score, it *appears* that GOOD 
scores fail to lower it from the default of 3.3.


Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/


p7sUg1l40viQQ.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature