TL;DR: These need to be def_whitelist_auth NOT whitelist_auth as you
have been committing them. See the earlier exchange between myself and
RW, who had assumed this was only about def_whitelist_auth entries.
Precisely because most users will never bother managing a large number
of local
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:18:50 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
> Well, the actual *COMMIT TO TRUNK*
> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1816394=rev) uses
> whitelist_auth for 6 entities, which IMHO is a terrible idea for the
> reasons I noted in my prior message.
The original post talked about extending
On 27 Nov 2017, at 10:22 (-0500), RW wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 23:54:12 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
Any whitelisting in the default ruleset should carry MUCH lower
weight than local explicit whitelisting ... NO sender should get a
default -100 just because we (SA maintainers) think they
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 23:54:12 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
> Any whitelisting in the default ruleset should carry MUCH lower
> weight than local explicit whitelisting ... NO sender should get a
> default -100 just because we (SA maintainers) think they generally
> mean well.
This isn't new
That was discussed in a previous topic on this mailing list, but it can be
done with:
askdns DNSWL_DWL_HI _DKIMDOMAIN_.dwl.dnswl.org A /^127\.\d+\.\d+\.3/
tflags DNSWL_DWL_HI nice net
describe DNSWL_DWL_HI dwl.dnswl.org high trust
score DNSWL_DWL_HI -3
askdns DNSWL_DWL_MED
My SA platform has very good results with thousands of
whitelist_auth entries but 98% of the SA users are not going to
know to create/manage these entries themselves. Combined with
other rules this also helps with spoofing legit senders like the
IRS, Bank of America, etc. I am not suggesting we
On 26 Nov 2017, at 20:00 (-0500), John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Axb wrote:
On 11/26/2017 06:04 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
The current 60_whitelist_spf.cf is 11 years old. What does
everyone think
about starting a 60_whitelist_auth.cf and extending this list to
known
good senders
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Axb wrote:
On 11/26/2017 06:04 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
The current 60_whitelist_spf.cf is 11 years old. What does everyone think
about starting a 60_whitelist_auth.cf and extending this list to known
good senders like *@alertsp.chase.com and *@email.dropboxmail.com?
My
> My SA platform has very good results with thousands of whitelist_auth entries
> but 98% of the SA users are not going to know to create/manage these entries
> themselves. Combined with other rules this also helps with spoofing legit
> senders like the IRS, Bank of America, etc. I am not
On 11/26/2017 06:04 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
The current 60_whitelist_spf.cf is 11 years old. What does everyone
think about starting a 60_whitelist_auth.cf and extending this list to
known good senders like *@alertsp.chase.com and *@email.dropboxmail.com?
My SA platform has very good results
On 11/26/2017 06:04 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
The current 60_whitelist_spf.cf is 11 years old. What does everyone
think about starting a 60_whitelist_auth.cf and extending this list to
known good senders like *@alertsp.chase.com and *@email.dropboxmail.com?
My SA platform has very good results
On 11/26/2017 12:04 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
The current 60_whitelist_spf.cf is 11 years old. What does everyone
think about starting a 60_whitelist_auth.cf and extending this list to
known good senders like *@alertsp.chase.com and *@email.dropboxmail.com?
My SA platform has very good results
12 matches
Mail list logo
