Um, "FORGED_SPF_HELO"? Are you sure this message is from MS?
{^_^}
On 20240512 06:56:59, Thomas Barth wrote:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This i
Thomas Barth skrev den 2024-05-12 15:56:
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes,
Am 2024-05-12 12:39, schrieb Greg Troxel:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5
to
6.31, then probably they should not be doing that.
This is a status of dmarc-report from microsoft today
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.938 tagged_above=2 required=6.31
On 12.05.24 06:39, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
as it was already said, it's not Debian, it's default score in amavis.
Even the original header is in the amavis format:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.999 tagged_above=2
I would suggest that if Debian is modifying the default config from 5 to
6.31, then
probably they should not be doing that. as a packager, I fix bugs
(and file upstream bug reports), but it's usually linuxy
nonportability things that are clearly bugs (test ==, hardcoded lists
of accepted
Am 2024-05-12 01:08, schrieb jdow:
Methinks this is a perfect example of "one man's spam is another man's
ham." Or in my case, "A woman's spam is often a man's ham."
I like spam when it's well designed. That's why I no longer reject it on
my newly set up mail server. I just want them all to
