On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 04:47 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On lør 25 sep 2010 02:53:30 CEST, Chris wrote > > 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) > > there is still user in def :=)
Benny, I'm still confused, sometimes that isn't hard to do :) anyway, I now have this: meta SC_NET_HAM (USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST||USER_IN_DK_WHITELIST|| USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST||USER_IN_WHITELIST) or should the last entry also be removed? > > user_in_whitelist includes whitelist_from with can be forged, my fav > to be removed if i just can convence more devs :) > > if you remove all user in def then it begins to work, and i can see > you have redudendance with domainkey and dkim, if you as i see use > dkim then domainkey is not needed anymore > > > priority SC_NET_HAM -500 > > shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM ham > > change ham here to on priority SC_NET_HAM -500 shortcircuit SC_NET_HAM ham # score SC_NET_HAM -20 score SC_NET_HAM 0 is this correct or still borked? > > and let it fire when the meta only content of user in whitelist and > not any def rules for whitelist > Thanks Chris -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
