On 2010-12-15 21:41, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 15/12/2010 3:51 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The khop rules are good. I thought the 2tld stuff had been pulled into
SA as 20_aux_tlds.cf?
It has, but the Daryl edited one has some additional stuff (I think)
that isn't in there. There is conditional co
On 2010-12-15 19:00, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
90_2tld.cf.sare.sa-update.dostech.net
this has been deprecated and replaced with SA's default 20_aux_tlds.cf
See in: 20_aux_tlds.cf
# This file replaces the SARE http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/90_2tld.cf
# which will be deprecated as from
On 15/12/10 00:43, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:52:28 -0800 (PST)
> John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Cedric Knight wrote:
>>
>>> So a hash is best,
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> and I'd suggest SHA1 over MD5.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why? An MD5 hash is shorter than an SHA hash
>> (a
>> On 12/15/2010 11:57 AM, Andy Jezierski wrote:
>>> Been away from the list for quite some time. Just updated SA from
>>> 3.2.5 to 3.3.1. Have been trying to find a list of sa-update channels
>>> that are still relevant but not with much success.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know is such a list exists, o
>> On ons 15 dec 2010 19:20:28 CET, Nikolay Shopik wrote
>>> I did play more with gmail as example, and notice. If I send email
>>> from web interface SPF always matched and OK. If I'm using MUA to send
>>> mail via SMTP it never fail or pass SPF rule. Probably new "Received:"
>>> header is related
On 15.12.10 20:08, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> my mx have public ip and not behind nat, should i add public ip of my mx into
> internal_networks?
Your internal_networks should contain IP addresses of all MX servers, and
also all servers your mail server passes before it is checked by
spamassassin, th
