Daniel Quinlan wrote: >> -firsttrusted hits in a correctly configured setting (counting Michael >> Parker as misconfigured, although I'm not sure whether it's a trusted >> networks guessing problem that we should be able to guess or not, but >> we're currently not guessing his trusted networks right).
Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I currently don't have any trusted networks, and I'm not sure that I > should. Judging by the headers you showed me, I'm not sure how we could guess it correctly, but show Justin and see how quickly he flips out. :-) > I get very little mail sent directly to my box, most comes in via > forwards from various places. So almost all of my spam comes in via > the forwarders. Perhaps I should be trusting the forwarding servers > (ie pobox, yahoo, etc). Yes, well, the existence of forwarders is a major problem for doing -firsttrusted as a test. I would advise extending trust to them. I've even considered extending trust to ASF and SourceForge myself since I get so much mail from their servers and I believe they won't spam me. > Seems like the rule should be firstuntrusted or something like that, > but perhaps I'm just not thinking about it all correctly. The naming is all screwy and confusing. "trusted" means the Received header it came on was added by a trusted relay, not that the IP itself was trusted. It's fine to call that "trust", but it seems like when we're talking about location/distance/proximity, we should be saying "internal" vs. "external" or something other than trust because trust is offset by 1. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
