Dan,
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists ("RBLs"):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
The first two are "FP-risky" for outright blocking, but can be useful in
a scoring environment. The latter two are much more safe for outrigh
Jonathan Armitage wrote:
Tom Bombadil wrote:
Thanks for the response Loren, but unfortunately, as far as I know we
can specify the "spamd" directive just once in exim.
I realise we're getting OT here, but there are at least two ways to call
SA from Exim, the built-in hook which you are using
On 06.10.07 11:51, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At
> this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be
> setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all.
> And this did con
Message at bottom.
I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At
this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be
setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all.
And this did constitute a fail (i.e. a forgery), but th
Tom Bombadil wrote:
Thanks for the response Loren, but unfortunately, as far as I know we
can specify the "spamd" directive just once in exim.
I realise we're getting OT here, but there are at least two ways to call
SA from Exim, the built-in hook which you are using, and sa-exim, which
calls
