> Martin Hepworth wrote:
> problem with the ALL_TRUSTED rule. I give this a score of 0 (zero) in my
> local.cf as it give too many false hits for my liking.
Thanks for that info, I found some false hits here too, this 72.11.147.2
address for example is not trusted by me, see below..
Menno van Bennekom
Received: from msm01.actryx.com (unknown [72.11.147.2])
by *** (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39A617B823
for <***>; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:44:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: by msm01.actryx.com (PowerMTA(TM) v2.0r6) id hs8bie050u4d; Sun,
9 Jan 2005 21:47:51 -0800 (envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Money Making Ideas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I Promise to make 5000 people wealthier
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:47:51 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=-10550.3350387
To: <***>
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.702 tag=4 tag2=6.2 kill=6.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,
BAYES_99, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, DCC_CHECK, HTML_90_100, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,
HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_WEB_BUGS, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY, MPART_ALT_DIFF,
URIBL_OB_SURBL, URIBL_SBL, URIBL_SC_SURBL, URIBL_WS_SURBL
X-Spam-Level: *****************
