Re: dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread Benny Pedersen
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 23:47:44 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 11/02, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:12:50 +0800, Ron wrote: >is habeas.com your domain? if now i think you might need to allow No, it's used in SA rules: 72_active.cf:header RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE eval:check_rbl_txt('

Re: dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread darxus
On 11/02, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:12:50 +0800, Ron wrote: > >is habeas.com your domain? if now i think you might need to allow No, it's used in SA rules: 72_active.cf:header RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE eval:check_rbl_txt('ssc-firsttrusted','sa-accredit.habeas.com.') > dig -4 +trace +n

Re: dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread Benny Pedersen
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:12:50 +0800, Ron wrote: is habeas.com your domain? if now i think you might need to allow recursion on your bind to resolve other domains. HTH. dig -4 +trace +notcp 194.210.16.72.sa-accredit.habeas.com txt connection refused ?

Re: dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread Ron
is habeas.com your domain? if now i think you might need to allow recursion on your bind to resolve other domains. HTH. Regards, Ron On 02/11/2011 11:02, Benny Pedersen wrote: On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:54:41 +, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: connection refused means your dns servers are not respondi

Re: dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread Benny Pedersen
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 02:54:41 +, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: connection refused means your dns servers are not responding properly. Check your entries in /etc/resolv.conf. The format should be: nameserver 1.2.3.4 nameserver 127.0.0.1 should not work with bind ?

Re: dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread Jeremy McSpadden
connection refused means your dns servers are not responding properly. Check your entries in /etc/resolv.conf. The format should be: nameserver 1.2.3.4 -- Jeremy McSpadden Flux Labs, Inc http://www.fluxlabs.net Endless Solutions Office : 850-588-4626 Cell : 850-890-2543

dns problems :/

2011-11-01 Thread Benny Pedersen
my own fault ? 30-Oct-2011 04:41:25.873 lame-servers: info: error (connection refused) resolving '194.210.16.72.sa-accredit.habeas.com/TXT/IN': 94.76.206.138#53 30-Oct-2011 18:20:05.598 lame-servers: info: error (connection refused) resolving '99.79.61.69.sa-accredit.habeas.com/TXT/IN': 94.76

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-11-01 Thread Mark Martinec
Alex, > > No, the DKIM_VERIFIED (or rather: DKIM_VALID, as it is now called) > Shouldn't then L_UNVERIFIED_GMAIL be updated to rely upon DKIM_VALID > instead of the deprecated DKIM_VERIFIED? Yes, definitely, if still in use. Where did you find it, it's not one of the stock rules. Probably posted

Re: Whitelisting with DKIM

2011-11-01 Thread Alex
Hi, >> Then shouldn't it just be eliminated as a rule entirely? There are >> also rules that apparently depend on it: > > No, the DKIM_VERIFIED (or rather: DKIM_VALID, as it is now called) > (with a near-zero score) is valuable for two reasons: in combination > with other rules adds flexibility to