On 6 Apr 2018, at 8:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I'm getting a lot of SORBS lookups rejected due to an "unexpected
RCODE". Is anybody else seeing these?
I'm sure someone is...
There are none of those where I see. If the "unexpected RCODE" is
SERVFAIL, it was likely transient on their end. If
Hi, everyone
Pls...
Is this still an active spamassassin test?
header __FSL_HAS_LIST_UNSUB exists:List-Unsubscribe
meta FSL_BULK_SIG ((DCC_CHECK || RAZOR2_CHECK || PYZOR_CHECK)
&& !__FSL_HAS_LIST_UNSUB)
describe FSL_BULK_SIG Bulk signature with no Unsubscribe
Had some
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
It's also useless duplicate of __RP_MATCHES_RCVD
header T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD eval:check_mailfrom_matches_rcvd()
header __RP_MATCHES_RCVD eval:check_mailfrom_matches_rcvd()
Cleaned that up.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On 7 Apr 2018, at 8:08 (-0400), Robert Boyl wrote:
Hi, everyone
Pls...
Is this still an active spamassassin test?
No. It is a 'sandbox' rule that got auto-promoted at some point and was
auto-demoted March 12. If you run sa-update daily and restart any
persistent processes using the rules
On Sat, 2018-04-07 at 02:07 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2018, at 8:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > I'm getting a lot of SORBS lookups rejected due to an "unexpected
> > RCODE". Is anybody else seeing these?
>
> I'm sure someone is...
>
> There are none of those where I see. If the
On 07/04/18 16:52, Reindl Harald wrote:
Content analysis details: (5.1 points, 4.0 required)
who did set the *non default* required score to 4.0?
why did the person not adjust -0.2 for BAYES_00 too?
the scoring of this system is idiotic!
required score here is 5.5 and BAYES_00 is scored to
I'm not entirely sure what is the cause of this - notification emails
from The Pension Regulator in UK (a government body overseeing pensions)
have the destination email in upper case as part of the Message-ID. I
don't know if the user has input their email address in caps when
creating the
On Saturday 07 April 2018 at 18:10:18, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> On 07/04/18 16:52, Reindl Harald wrote something.
> Thank you for answering, but really, in effect you haven't answered at
> all my question.
> And the way I customise the scores are based on the type of emails
> received at this
On 7 Apr 2018, at 11:42 (-0400), Sebastian Arcus wrote:
Do the standards really require a message id to be in all lower case?
Of course not, and that's also not an accurate description of
MSGID_SPAM_CAPS.
A small minority of rules in SA are based on any external standard. They
are
