> In this case, since they don't seem to care *which* spam > tests fail (the > fact that you use an X-RBL-Warning: header rather than > blocking the E-mail > typically indicates that the test doesn't justify blocking > the E-mail), I > would recommend using a trick to allow you to keep the X-RBL-Warning: > headers while still getting this mail through. ... >
I can't follow: The default- and per Domain configuration is used to process incoming mail for this specific domain. But the Exim Mail server bounce our messages with the outgoing X-RBL-Warnings from declude. As I know only the pro version handle the outgoing actions set in the global.cfg So I'm neither able to disable only outgoing warnings. The problem is, that we has had this problem with more then one of our domains/clients in the last month. The austrian ISP seem's to be a large provider with many clients. The next strange thing is, that not all messages are bounced by the Exim MTA. Also after an extensive research I wasn't able to identify why. I have no headers of messages that was delivered successfully. One bounced error maessage is attached to this mail. The question is: Why Exim can have something against X-RBL-Warnings? Are this warnings a standard or a declude specific message? How can I prevent adding any header to outgoing messages? (if this solves the problem) Markus
--- Begin Message --- Title: Mail delivery failed: returning message to senderThis message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
forced failure: SPAMCHK: Message failed SPAMCHK:
-65.------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- End Message ---
Received: from [217.199.0.33] (helo=mail.zcom.it)
by mx.inode.at with esmtp (Exim 3.31 #2)
id 18bHaG-0007wP-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:54:12 +0100
Received: from NB01 [80.117.116.229] by mail.zcom.it with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.13) id AA2FC640090; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:53:51 +0100
From: "Markus Gufler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Johann Neuhold'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Homepage
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:53:45 +0100
Message-ID: <004601c2c1fc$284adf30$0105a8c0@NB01>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0047_01C2C204.8A0F4730"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
In-Reply-To: <005b01c2c1f5$6feee270$5b10e5d5@med2>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-RBL-Warning: SPAMCHK: Message failed SPAMCHK: -65.
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [80.117.116.229]
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMCHK [-65]
X-Note: Sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - host229-116.pool80117.interbusiness.it ([80.117.116.229]).
