On 18/07/2018 17:08, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
OK at a second glance I would say rejected upfront again, because
its From domain is NXDOMAIN.
I interpreted the From: in the .txt as being a body header, because, as
you pointed out, if it was an envelope header then the email should have
never b
OK at a second glance I would say rejected upfront again, because its From
domain is NXDOMAIN.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 14:34, Daniele Duca wrote:
> On 18/07/2018 14:22, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>
>> At first glance I would say rejected upfront, because the client
>> 180.252.178.204 does not ha
Julian Kippels wrote:
Hi,
I am in the process of setting up a bayes-sql-database but I am unsure
of wether I want to set the bayes_sql_override_username option.
I would like to have per-user-bayes scores, so that scores from user A
will not interfere with messages sent to user B.
If I understand
On 07/17/2018 08:29 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I'll defer that question to Alex Broens. He can do it more justice than I
ever could. AXB?
--
Kevin A. McGrail
VP Fundraising, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0
On 18/07/2018 14:22, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
At first glance I would say rejected upfront, because the client
180.252.178.204 does not have RDNS. No need for SA.
I wish I could 5xx last untrusted relays without rdns without having the
company's phones melt :)
Daniele
At first glance I would say rejected upfront, because the client
180.252.178.204 does not have RDNS. No need for SA.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:00, Chip M. wrote:
> http://puffin.net/software/spam/samples/0058_extortion_numeric_domain.txt
Hi,
I am in the process of setting up a bayes-sql-database but I am unsure
of wether I want to set the bayes_sql_override_username option.
I would like to have per-user-bayes scores, so that scores from user A
will not interfere with messages sent to user B.
If I understand it correctly, no matter
On Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 6:58:54 AM GMT+2, Bill Cole
wrote:
>> 3. Pure numeric TLDs appear to be non existent (so far!)
>I expect that this will hold true for a long time.
Bill, do not speak loud! truth is stranger than fiction :-(
---PedroD
