On 6/1/2016 3:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
write 1000 times "!!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR SETUP IS CRIPPLED
http://uribl.com/refused.shtml !!!!!!!!!!!!" in the rpeort header and
every 5 seconds into the maillog so that the biggest fool can't
ignore it

Am 01.06.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
the setup doesn't have to be crippled to get URIBL_BLOCKED
some people just need to buy access...

On 01.06.16 15:33, Reindl Harald wrote:
in theory

not in theory. in real life.

in reality 99.9% cases where this happens would buying access not change anything when someone is not capable to run a non-forwarding resolver

99.9% is not 100% and those 0.1% should NOT be bugged with CRIPPLED setup
messages, they should get proper message

and *it is* crippeled - it likely also has not working RBL scoring because exeeding limits and the same for dnwsl

receiving much mail is NOT a CRIPPLED setup.


Am 01.06.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Joe Quinn:
Perhaps, score URIBL_BLOCKED -1000?

On 01.06.16 14:19, Reindl Harald wrote:
no, score it +1000 because when your mailserver start to classify
anything as spam, especially in a setup where high scored mail is
rejected one would look what that rule is giving 1000 points

no way. non-working uribl does not cause any problem to mail flow

but it causes a ton of threads where people are just too lazy for google basics and it's not only about uribl, it's also about dnsbl/dnswl and usage limits

Therefore I agree that there could be better way of noticing admins of an
issue.

Getting all mail tagged as SPAM or HAM only because of URIBL unavailability
is not a way to notice them properly

We would get even more threads if we scored URIBL_BLOCKED insanely high (or
low).

URIBL_BLOCKED was NOT the main reason why this thread started, the main
reason was broken BAYES.

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Microsoft dick is soft to do no harm

Reply via email to