Am 04.06.2016 um 14:40 schrieb jpff:
Thank you -- did not realise the /etc/default/unbound file existed. It
was set to forward. Will remind me how I prefer instllatins from source
for critical programs.
Unbound installed from Debian Whezzy
nonsense - you don't need to compile anything from
On 31 May 2016, at 2:18, Shivram Krishnan wrote:
It is not on production. I am using this to evaluate spamassassin.
That is entirely unnecessary and will break the autolearning subsystem
if you have it enabled.
To get a full report of the rules hit and their scores, use the '-t'
option
On 2016-06-04 07:56, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
ACk for unbound.
ACK for better dns books to newcommers like me :)
Is is a very versatile, fast and stable recursive nameserver. We run it
as
Recursive DNS at ISPs where, for example at one location, it serves +20
million customers.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:15:55 +0100
Robert Chalmers wrote:
> I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are
> not scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
> > autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report:
> > * 0.0 T_SPF_TEMPERROR SPF:
Thank you -- did not realise the /etc/default/unbound file existed. It was
set to forward. Will remind me how I prefer instllatins from source for
critical programs.
Unbound installed from Debian Whezzy
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
On 03-06-16 18:19, jpff wrote:
Mailserver is in this house, running Debian.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Andy Balholm wrote:
I was wondering if your mail server is an on-premises physical machine, or
something hosted in a data center somewhere. If it’s in a data center, what
data center?
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:47 AM, John
Am 04.06.2016 um 11:41 schrieb Tom Hendrikx:
On 03-06-16 18:19, jpff wrote:
X-Originating-<%= hostname %>-IP: [217.155.197.248]
OK I expect to get flamed but anyway
I as still seeing the occasional URIBL_BLOCKED
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was
Am 04.06.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Robert Chalmers:
I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are
not scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
because that's the purpose of a testing rule and because it does you a
favour *not* to score any sort of TEMPERROR
On 03-06-16 18:19, jpff wrote:
> X-Originating-<%= hostname %>-IP: [217.155.197.248]
>
> OK I expect to get flamed but anyway
>
> I run a couple of mailers, one of which is small with ~5 users. For
> years I ran dnsmasq which was easy to set up and only gave occasional
> troubles with the
I’m trying to discover why T_SPF_TEMPERROR and the other below it are not
scoring higher even though they are actually failing?
This is the part from a spam message that is sneaking through.
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on zeus.localhost
> X-Spam-Level: *
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
