Re: whitelist_from_rcvd question (and more n+1 rules that score 6 points)

2011-07-27 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Michael Scheidell wrote: Seems zixmail has not only decided to bastardize 'email' off the net, but now, when informing someone they got one, makes suck bad freeking headers that SA wants to tag it spam. take the bayes credit out and you have 8 points on a legit email.

Re: whitelist_from_rcvd question (and more n+1 rules that score 6 points)

2011-07-27 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Michael Scheidell wrote: Seems zixmail has not only decided to bastardize 'email' off the net, but now, when informing someone they got one, makes suck bad freeking headers that SA wants to tag it spam. take the bayes credit out and you have 8 points on a legit email.

RE: whitelist_from_rcvd question

2008-06-10 Thread Jason Bertoch
whitelist_from_rcvd only works for hosts that have a valid DNS map, both forward reverse. This is to prevent spammers from forging a DNS reverse map to exploit a known whitelist_from_rcvd. As your host '[75.145.201.209]' only has a reverse map (no forward map for that name) you cannot

Re: whitelist_from_rcvd question

2008-06-09 Thread John Hardin
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Jason Bertoch wrote: whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 75-145-201-209-Jacksonville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net is in my local.cf yet a message with the following headers didn't match. Any ideas? Did you restart spamd? You might try just whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL

RE: whitelist_from_rcvd question

2008-06-09 Thread Jason Bertoch
-Original Message- On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Jason Bertoch wrote: whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 75-145-201-209-Jacksonville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net is in my local.cf yet a message with the following headers didn't match. Any ideas? Did you restart spamd? You might

Re: whitelist_from_rcvd question

2008-06-09 Thread David B Funk
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Jason Bertoch wrote: whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 75-145-201-209-Jacksonville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net is in my local.cf yet a message with the following headers didn't match. Any ideas? Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from [75.145.201.209]