--On Friday, February 15, 2013 5:01 PM -0800 John Hardin
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Does anyone tweak the DKIM scores given by SA? There are plenty of
scenarios where DKIM has failed, yet SA does not give the email a
particularly high spam mark. 3 example test
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Does anyone tweak the DKIM scores given by SA? There are plenty of scenarios
where DKIM has failed, yet SA does not give the email a particularly high
spam mark. 3 example test cases below. I guess I was expecting SA would
score DKIM failures
Does anyone tweak the DKIM scores given by SA? There are plenty of
scenarios where DKIM has failed, yet SA does not give the email a
particularly high spam mark. 3 example test cases below. I guess I was
expecting SA would score DKIM failures more aggressively if there are
problems with the
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:26:33 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Steve Freegard skrev den 2013-02-12 21:19:
>
>> header RELAY_NOT_US X-Relay-Countries =~ /\b(?!US)[A-Z]{2}\b/
>
> and what date is the database from ?, ip2cc ipv4-addr, to show it when
> its build, to update it either use the ne
On 2/14/2013 6:35 PM, Emmett Culley wrote:
Hi KAM,
Can you give me a hint on who or what to contact. I don't know how
those rules got into my system. It was working flawlessly for many
years until a week or so ago.
Well, it still works it seems :-)
Thanks for the reply.
Emmett, that app
Philippe Ratté skrev den 2013-02-14 15:24:
The mail came from 65.54.190.123 and it passes SPF
dont use whitelist_from, with that setting anyone can use that email
as
sender to get whitelisted, this is okay if you do spf testing in mta
only, so spamassassin follow it as an ok, but not if you ar
