> junkemailfilter.com. 35997 IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ptr ip4:184.105.182.0/24
> ip4:69.50.231.128/26 ip4:108.38.233.28 ip4:198.23.154.75 ip4:172.245.58.202
> ?all"
Change ?all into -all.
Add this:
_dmarc.junkemailfilter.com. IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; aspf=s;
rua=mailto:postmas...@ju
>From: Marc Perkel
>Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
>problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC. I don't know a
>lot about it but is there some simple way I can get around this? Kind of
>a pain in the rear.
What kind of problems are you seei
Might be slightly off topic but I've been running into more delivery
problems with outgoing email because I don't use DMARC. I don't know a
lot about it but is there some simple way I can get around this? Kind of
a pain in the rear.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
supp...@junkemailfilter.com
ht
On 4/22/2017 8:01 AM, A. Schulze wrote:
will/are there be release candidates published?
Sorry this took so long. The answer is yes but a full release candidate
is pending our ruleqa backend. I've been building pre releases and
things are getting closer. I'll send a pre-release to the list.
On 5/1/2017 3:51 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Primarily, get the masscheck infrastructure working again.
This is moving along. Thanks to some volunteers like David Jones, we
are working on rebuilding that system with documentation so that we
don't go through this again!
Regards,
KAM
From: Alex
>On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:44 AM, David Jones wrote:
>> From: Alex
>>
>>>I also have a few questions about other rules that hit this email as
>>>well as some other rules I've come across today that I don't
>>>understand. Most of the questions relate to scoring appearing to be
>>>very
Hi,
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:51 PM, David B Funk
wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2017, Alex wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:44 AM, David Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Alex
>>>
>> I've taken a more conservative, but also more time-consuming approach
>> by creating rules that subtract a few po
On Mon, 1 May 2017, Alex wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:44 AM, David Jones wrote:
From: Alex
I've taken a more conservative, but also more time-consuming approach
by creating rules that subtract a few points with the right
combination.
I was also hoping there was a more general appro
On Mon, 1 May 2017, Alex wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Axb wrote:
On 04/30/2017 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Alex wrote:
Hi, is it possible hotmail is now using outlook.com to route and
process their email? Or perhaps this user is using outlook to send
t
Hi,
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:44 AM, David Jones wrote:
> From: Alex
>
>>I also have a few questions about other rules that hit this email as
>>well as some other rules I've come across today that I don't
>>understand. Most of the questions relate to scoring appearing to be
>>very high for the si
Hi,
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Axb wrote:
> On 04/30/2017 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Alex wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, is it possible hotmail is now using outlook.com to route and
>>> process their email? Or perhaps this user is using outlook to send
>>> their hotmail mail
On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 17:13 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >
> Is there something on vbounce that does notappl for you?
> loading it and settings proper whitelist_bounce_relays should hit all
> bounces that did not come as response to mail from your systems...
>
Obvious spam was being reje
From: micah anderson
>I have trusted_networks and internal_networks configured, and have been
>short-circuiting spam processing when messages come from those
>networks.
>I have:
>shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED on
I would advise against this since you need to do proper outbound filtering.
>and I ha
On Mon, 1 May 2017, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Alex wrote:
> I'm seeing far too many legitimate bounces being tagged as spam
> because they are hitting stock SA rules, including bayes50 ...
On 30.04.17 12:25, John Hardin wrote:
BAYES_50 should have no real effect on th
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Alex wrote:
process their email? Or perhaps this user is using outlook to send
their hotmail mail? If so, I believe the FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2 rule is
not considering this possibility.
On 04/30/2017 10:48 PM, John Hardin wrote:
That's entirely possible. I'm pretty sure I've
On Sun, 2017-04-30 at 14:42 -0400, Alex wrote:
It sounds like you're saying you're adding points to bounce emails
that don't originate from email sent by your system?
On 30.04.17 20:25, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Correct, or more specifically this is intended to catch spam spoofing
my domain as se
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Alex wrote:
I'm seeing far too many legitimate bounces being tagged as spam
because they are hitting stock SA rules, including bayes50 ...
On 30.04.17 12:25, John Hardin wrote:
BAYES_50 should have no real effect on the score of a message,
because that's Bayes saying "ins
From: Alex
>I also have a few questions about other rules that hit this email as
>well as some other rules I've come across today that I don't
>understand. Most of the questions relate to scoring appearing to be
>very high for the single rule.
> * 1.4 PYZOR_CHECK Listed in Pyzor (http://pyzor.s
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:51:11 -0400
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also have a few questions about other rules that hit this email as
> well as some other rules I've come across today that I don't
> understand. Most of the questions relate to scoring appearing to be
> very high for the single rule.
>
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
