On 14 Feb 2015, at 16:00 , Dave Pooser wrote:
> On 2/14/15 4:23 PM, "LuKreme" wrote:
>
>> I wasn¹t suggesting you implement it on your machine. That said, I would
>> very much like a list of hosts that pass whitelist_auth.
>
> whitelist_auth isn't a host-level check, it's an email address or
>
On 2/14/15 4:23 PM, "LuKreme" wrote:
>I wasn¹t suggesting you implement it on your machine. That said, I would
>very much like a list of hosts that pass whitelist_auth.
whitelist_auth isn't a host-level check, it's an email address or
domain-level check. "If a message can be authenticated as bei
Am 14.02.2015 um 23:23 schrieb LuKreme:
On 14 Feb 2015, at 05:27 , Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.02.2015 um 10:40 schrieb LuKreme:
On Feb 13, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
problem with lists is that a spammer just create a new free domain and spam
with it, so be in front, list all
On 14 Feb 2015, at 05:27 , Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 14.02.2015 um 10:40 schrieb LuKreme:
>> On Feb 13, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>>>
>>> problem with lists is that a spammer just create a new free domain and spam
>>> with it, so be in front, list all as spam until it known not to
Am 14.02.2015 um 10:40 schrieb LuKreme:
On Feb 13, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
problem with lists is that a spammer just create a new free domain and spam
with it, so be in front, list all as spam until it known not to be
In this specific case,the list is a list of known domain
On Feb 13, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> problem with lists is that a spammer just create a new free domain and spam
> with it, so be in front, list all as spam until it known not to be
In this specific case,the list is a list of known domains that will pass
whitelist_auth, which
