See below:
On 5/13/2022 8:41 PM, Arne Jensen wrote:
Den 13-05-2022 kl. 23:42 skrev Jeff Koch:
We're getting numerous false positives on 'RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL'.
When I check these IP's (193.106.175.39, for example) at
https://www.dnswl.org they are NOT listed.
* -5.0
Den 13-05-2022 kl. 23:42 skrev Jeff Koch:
We're getting numerous false positives on 'RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL'. When
I check these IP's (193.106.175.39, for example) at
https://www.dnswl.org they are NOT listed.
* -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at
https://www.dnswl.org/,
Hi:
We're getting numerous false positives on 'RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL'. When I
check these IP's (193.106.175.39, for example) at https://www.dnswl.org
they are NOT listed.
* -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at
https://www.dnswl.org/, high
* trust
> On May 11, 2022, at 9:24 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2022, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>> Anyone have a rule to detect the following nonsense headers seen in this
>> message I got?
>>
>> Return-Path:
>> Received: from cp24.deluxehosting.com (cp24.deluxehosting.com
>>
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 12:22:48PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
> How do you look at what a rule is matching? I've never figured that out...
Debug output:
spamassassin -t -D rules < message.eml 2>&1 | grep 'got hit'
> On May 11, 2022, at 1:53 AM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:49:32AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:44:05AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 06:19:38PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
See my original message.
I can't
> On May 11, 2022, at 1:44 AM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 06:19:38PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> See my original message.
>>
>> I can't think of a single way to match each header, and then test for any of
>> them not matching the pattern...
>
> Simply use regex
On 2022-05-13 at 07:45:40 UTC-0400 (Fri, 13 May 2022 04:45:40 -0700)
jdow
is rumored to have said:
Has anybody else noticed this rule is hitting rather often since
Thunderbird has changed to a gray fond rather than black font for
their default?
Not so much. Still just a 100% spam small
Has anybody else noticed this rule is hitting rather often since Thunderbird has
changed to a gray fond rather than black font for their default?
{o.o}
