On 03/04/2013 08:32 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/4/2013 1:38 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/1/2013 6:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_CGI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_MULTI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY 0
s
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/4/2013 1:38 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/1/2013 6:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > score RCVD_IN_NJABL_CGI 0
> > score RCVD_IN_NJABL_MULTI 0
> > score RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0
> > score RCVD_
On 3/4/2013 1:38 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/1/2013 6:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_CGI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_MULTI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM 0
And score __RCVD_IN_NJ
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Anthony Hoppe wrote:
Here's where my n00b-ness comes out. How do I write this rule to function
inversely? Is this on the right track?
header __MP_RCVD_MISMATCH eval:check_mailfrom_matches_rcvd()
meta MP_RCVD_MISMATCH (__MP RCVD_MISMATCH > 1)
score MP_RCVD_M
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/1/2013 6:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_CGI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_MULTI 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY 0
score RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM 0
And score __RCVD_IN_NJABL 0 just in case...
Should this be ha
Here's where my n00b-ness comes out. How do I write this rule to function
inversely? Is this on the right track?
header __MP_RCVD_MISMATCH eval:check_mailfrom_matches_rcvd()
meta MP_RCVD_MISMATCH (__MP RCVD_MISMATCH > 1)
score MP_RCVD_MISMATCH 0.5
I'm not sure how check_mailfrom
