> On Apr 10, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Curtis Villamizar <cur...@orleans.occnc.com> > wrote: > > In message <b1132232-5b45-4a7b-8fb8-f240cea1f...@kreme.com> > "@lbutlr" writes: >> >> On Apr 10, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Curtis Villamizar = >> <cur...@orleans.occnc.com> wrote: >>> postscreen_dnsbl_sites =3D >>> list.dnswl.org*-5 >>> # followed by some blacklist sites >> >> It was my understanding that eh the order of test said not matter >> because all the dnsbls listed would be checked, a final score >> computed, and then that compound number passed along to postscreen. > > Nobody ever said there was an order dependence.
“Followed by” does imply that order may be significant. > > btw- I don't think list.dnswl.org is a viable workaround for the post > 220 problem. This just affects the dnsbl score which would already be > zero. The post 220 checks would still be run before putting the gmail > server IP into the temporary whitelist. Manual maintenance of > postscreen_access is the only thing that would work. Isn’t it that if an IP hasn’t been seen and scores 0 postscreeen sends a temporary failure, so scoring it negative means it gets an immediate pass? I know that enabling post screen and dnswl stopped the issues with large mailers on my system. -- Nothing gold can stay -- Robert Frost Stay gold -- Johnny Cade
