At 06:43 PM 10/9/2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Richard, now that you are using their spam prevention you need to
stop doing your own. If you reject mail they will send it back to
the forged sender and you'll be blacklisted for backscatter.
You can't do multi-level spam protection. It doesn't work.
I
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:32:11AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
At 06:43 PM 10/9/2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Richard, now that you are using their spam prevention you need to
stop doing your own. If you reject mail they will send it back to
the forged sender and you'll be blacklisted for backscatter.
Ricardo Stella wrote:
We are currently testing (not my choice) a hosted anti-spam server,
primarily to get rid of the bulk of spam. So our domain MX records
point to their servers, and they deliver lower level junk to us.
Trying to gray and whitelist some senders, it seems that my local.cf
At 03:44 PM 10/9/2007, Ricardo Stella wrote:
We are currently testing (not my choice) a hosted anti-spam server,
primarily to get rid of the bulk of spam. So our domain MX records
point to their servers, and they deliver lower level junk to us.
Trying to gray and whitelist some senders, it
Ricardo,
The 'apparent' difference is that in the addresses I have listed in
trusted_networks and internal_networks correctly show as such in the
debug when done via sa command line, but does not (trusted? no internal?
no) when I run amavisd debug-sa.
clear_trusted_networks
trusted_networks
Richard, now that you are using their spam prevention you need to
stop doing your own. If you reject mail they will send it back to
the forged sender and you'll be blacklisted for backscatter.
You can't do multi-level spam protection. It doesn't work.
On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Ricardo
