On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:38:49 +0200
Flemming Jacobsen wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:49 +0200 Per Jessen wrote:
> > > RW wrote:
> > > > What I mean is that if I whitelist a private email address, the
> > > > chances of a spammer ever sending me a spam spoofing that
> > > > address
Den 2012-06-20 18:38, Flemming Jacobsen skrev:
Because you use email to send yourself reminder notes or small
files. I have addresses on several distinct systems (private,
work, google, user group, ...).
And I whitelist them because I do not want mail to get lost.
with shared imap folders noth
RW wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:49 +0200 Per Jessen wrote:
> > RW wrote:
> > > What I mean is that if I whitelist a private email address, the
> > > chances of a spammer ever sending me a spam spoofing that address is
> > > very small.
> >
> > Happened to me twice only yesterday - somebody s
Den 2012-06-20 14:05, Greg Troxel skrev:
That way I could do:
whitelist_from -5 f...@yahoo.com
AWL plugin basicly could be extended to use dkim/spf and more bound to
whitelist_* so the awl score is more live calculated, with default awl
its bound to 0.0.x.x/16 but it could be changed to /
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:22:08 +0200
Per Jessen wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > Not if someone sends an email through a different mail system,
>
> I think that is what "whitelist_allows_relays" is intended to take
> care of.
If it made a difference to the case I was referring to then it would
effectivel
On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I would like to see...
As an open source project, we encourage people to submit patches and
step up to coding on the project.
You can really start small with one line patches and I'll do my best to
support you.
Regards,
KAM
My suggestion was intended to minimize the effect on existing
behavior. I agree, it would probably be a very good idea to allow
whitelist_from to be scored differently than the other whitelist
variants, and to ship it with a smaller default score, but that change
is fairly disruptive.
I
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:49 +0200
Per Jessen wrote:
> RW wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:25:53 +0200
> > Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >
> >> Den 2012-06-20 03:09, RW skrev:
> >>
> >> > The overwhelming majority of email addresses are never spoofed.
> >
> >> seen from my mta logs off sender add
RW wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:25:53 +0200
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> Den 2012-06-20 03:09, RW skrev:
>>
>> > The overwhelming majority of email addresses are never spoofed.
>
>> seen from my mta logs off sender addresses that miss the smtp auth
>> password here postfix dont agree with yo
RW wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:14:11 -0400
> Jeff Mincy wrote:
>
>>From: RW
>>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:43:57 +0100
>
>>If used sensibly USER_IN_WHITELIST is probably the most reliable
>> rule we have, for the overwhelming majority of addresses it's far
>> more accurate than spf
10 matches
Mail list logo
