Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-06-05 Thread Derrick 'dman' Hudson
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:17:41PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote: | dman wrote: | | d> | whitelist_from *root* | d> | d> How about | d> whitelist_from *root*Cron Daemon* | | I think the whitelist checks against the address part, and not the "Real Name" | or (Comment Name) parts. So *root* o

Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-06-01 Thread Craig R Hughes
dman wrote: d> | whitelist_from *root* d> d> How about d> whitelist_from *root*Cron Daemon* I think the whitelist checks against the address part, and not the "Real Name" or (Comment Name) parts. So *root* or root* should work here. d> ... d> | OK, yeah, that looks like a good way to go.

Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-06-01 Thread Craig R Hughes
Harry Putnam wrote: HP> Subject: *SPAM* Cron /usr/sbin/netdate time.jtan.com HP> [...] HP> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-97.9 required=2.0 tests=FROM_MALFORMED,\ HP> TO_MALFORMED,SUPERLONG_LINE,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.20 HP> X-Spam-Level: HP> HP> So I guess whitelisting doesn't work quit

Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-06-01 Thread Craig R Hughes
dman wrote: d> The other bug is in SA. IIRC it only properly parses d> [real-name] <[address]> d> addresses and not d> [address] ([real name]) d> d> If I'm right on that, then you can't whitelist an address of that d> format. I may be wrong, though, and SA might handle that format d> co

Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-05-29 Thread dman
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 09:25:34AM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote: | dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > The default config file has some examples. Also look at | > /etc/spamassassin/60_whitelist.cf (you're using debian, right?). | | No, not Debian. In this case RedHat 7.1 Well, ok, as long as

Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-05-29 Thread Harry Putnam
dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The default config file has some examples. Also look at > /etc/spamassassin/60_whitelist.cf (you're using debian, right?). No, not Debian. In this case RedHat 7.1 About those examples in 60_whitelist.cf: There are none that show multiple entries in my copy.

Re: [SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-05-29 Thread dman
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:52:08PM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote: | [Cross post alert... This should have been posted on `talk' | I had my wires crossed for a few posts which will no be posted to | `talk'] [only replying on -talk] | Come within a hairs breadth of giving full details of what will w

[SAtalk] What is legal format for whitelist_from

2002-05-28 Thread Harry Putnam
[Cross post alert... This should have been posted on `talk' I had my wires crossed for a few posts which will no be posted to `talk'] The online docs at: http://spamassassin.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html Come within a hairs breadth of giving full details of what will work with whitelis