On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 02:04 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On lør 25 sep 2010 00:31:18 CEST, Chris wrote > > # slower, network-based whitelisting > > meta SC_NET_HAM (USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DK_WHITELIST|| > > USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_DK_WL||USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL|| > > USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL||USER_IN_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST) > > change this meta to NOT use def_ whitelist > > > priority SC_NET_HAM -500 > > shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM ham > > whitelist gives on its own -100, now you add -20 more ? > > > score SC_NET_HAM -20 > > here > > > Then I have this: > > > > whitelist_from_SPF *...@embarqmail.com > > def_whitelist_from_dkim *...@embarqmail.com > > def_whitelist_from_spf *...@embarqmail.com > > why is spf more trusted then dkim here ? > > you did see fp, change all above to def_whitelist_* > > and change shortcicuit to only match whitelist_* not def_whitelist > > or solve it with remove whitelist for this fp domain :) > > > Here's what rules hit in a short circuit ham: > > > > X-spam-status: No, score=-124.2 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_PBL=3.335, > > RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.001,SC_NET_HAM=-20,SHORTCIRCUIT=-100, > > USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5 RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,SC_NET_HAM, > > SHORTCIRCUIT,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=ham >
Does this look right Benny or do I still have it screwed up: meta SC_NET_HAM (USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DK_WHITELIST|| USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DEF_DK_WL||USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL|| USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL||USER_IN_WHITELIST) priority SC_NET_HAM -500 shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM ham # score SC_NET_HAM -20 score SC_NET_HAM 0 I only have these two lines now: def_whitelist_from_dkim *...@embarqmail.com def_whitelist_from_spf *...@embarqmail.com Or is this not what you meant? -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
