Hi Guys
I'm using spamassassin to make sure that my newsletter is formatted properly
when sent out, the only error I get is a message like this:
RDNS_NONE and the explanation is Delivered to internal network by a host with
no rDNS
My headers looks like this:
Return-path:
Received: from mx3.onl
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 14:11 +0200, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> I have been using __MANY_RECIPS in some meta rules for some time now,
> and noticed a weird FP today. The rule seems to count the number of '@'s
> in the To and CC header. Someone sent a mail to using the (albeit silly)
> format, probably by
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 13:19 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:28 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann
> wrote:
> > RULE_NAME X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted =~ /^[^\]]+ rdns=evil.example.net /
> >
> > That rdns value is added to the Received header by your SMTP, and your
> > MX actually sh
On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:28 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 18:34 -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> I'm trying to write a rule that gives some spamminess score to messages
>> received from any host that resolves to protection.outlook.com.
>>
>> I tried to use _REMOTEHOSTNA
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
b Trying to figure out why RP_MATCHES_RCVD scored so low. Is it
because Return-Path: and the last
Received matches that domain? if so, anything I can do to score t as
the proper spam it is?
On 21.10.13 10:24, John Hardin wrote:
RP_MATCHES_RCVD i
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
b Trying to figure out why RP_MATCHES_RCVD scored so low. Is it
because Return-Path: and the last
Received matches that domain? if so, anything I can do to score t as
the proper spam it is?
RP_MATCHES_RCVD is a check that the message metadata i
b Trying to figure out why RP_MATCHES_RCVD scored so low. Is it
because Return-Path: and the last
Received matches that domain? if so, anything I can do to score t as
the proper spam it is?
Original Message
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: r...@domain.com
Received: f
Hi,
I have been using __MANY_RECIPS in some meta rules for some time now,
and noticed a weird FP today. The rule seems to count the number of '@'s
in the To and CC header. Someone sent a mail to using the (albeit silly)
format, probably by using reply-to-all in a braindead MUA:
To "The foo mailin