Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:57 +, Christian Gregoire wrote:
Using SA 3.3.0. Any reason why RDNS_NONE now scores 1.3, when it was
down to 0.1 with the previous releases ?
The score was pretty much informational only previously and arbitrarily
set. The current score
Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if someone here is part of the returnpath.net
(http://www.returnpath.net/emailserviceprovider/certification/)
certification program?
Sender certification usually is unnecessary unless you send mails in bulk.
For bulk mailers, any
On lør 13 mar 2010 03:02:32 CET, Michelle Konzack wrote
The below headers trigger the rule only because the remote LAN SMTP
client, with IP 10.10.3.3, has no rDNS.
I'd rather say, for example, 1.3 for the last gateway, and 0.1 for the
others.
Maybe you tell your MTA to trust your own network
On lør 13 mar 2010 02:14:02 CET, Michelle Konzack wrote
The roblem is, accourding to the RFCs, ISP must have an abuse address,
but do you have ever tried this with a corporated domain?
Even postmaster is rejected on most domains.
report them on rfc-ignorant.org
Ome tim ago we had a problem
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
So I've refined the rule to specifically exclude hitting on the
sequence ../. which stops the rule triggering on multiple relative
paths.
uriLOCAL_URI_HIDDEN_DIR
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Ned Slider wrote:
So I've refined the rule to specifically exclude hitting on the
sequence ../. which stops the rule triggering on multiple relative
paths.
uri
Good evening,
Am 2010-03-13 14:46:35, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
report them on rfc-ignorant.org
I know it, but the way you have to report it is to long...
Ome tim ago we had a problem on a bnch of Debian mailinglists with a
persupermarket and after the ISP was not responsive, I have
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:09:33 +
Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:57 +, Christian Gregoire wrote:
Using SA 3.3.0. Any reason why RDNS_NONE now scores 1.3, when it
was down to 0.1 with the previous releases ?
The score was
Karsten,
You're correct in they both have scores. I was not paying close
attention to the headers and also you're correct about my confusion
with defualt SA headers and Amavisd-new headers. I didn't realize
Amavisd used custom SA headers for messages.
Thanks for clarifying this!
-Carlos
On
