Kris Deugau wrote:
>
> or has been making too
> many requests to SURBL, and is now either receiving "yes it's listed"
> for any request, or is generating that response for some reason.
>
That's entirely possible. It's only through doing research that
I learned that I'm supposed to set up bind9, or something similar.
Many months ago, I was making raw requests to SURBL because
I did not know about the following option:
spamassassin -L
Rather than deal with the problem at that time, I switched to the
-L option. Prior to switching, I'd been using spamassassin without
the -L switch out of ignorance.
More specifically, I'd been doing this:
cat spam.mbox | spamassassin -dt >temp
When I learned a better way, I did this:
cat spam.mbox | spamassassin -dtL >temp
Fortunately, my Linux distro, Debian (or KDE
or whatever) had set the default for incoming
mail to this:
spamassassin -L
However, when I tested new spamassassin rules
that I'd written, I did this initially:
cat spam.mbox | spamassassin -dt >temp
That absence of the -L switch when testing new spamassassin
rules that I personally wrote myself is what may have gotten
me into trouble.
Thanks for your reply! Much appreciated!
Ed Abbott
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/False-Positive-on-Domain-Name-tp33975030p33977081.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
