whitelist_to ?
On 12/23/20 12:56 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
I've tried the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially
lowers the score and still runs normal tests.
I'd like to disable RBL checks for one address.
On 22 Dec 2020, at 18:56, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
I've tried the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially
lowers the score and still runs normal tests.
I'd like to disable RBL checks for one address.
Do you have a setup t
Right, but __STY_INVIS is currently tag-blind (it only looks for the
style="" clause), so it hits that, and if lots of ham is hiding tracking
images that way that might explain the poor S/O.
I suspect that might be the case.
The vast majority of invisible garbage I see is hidden in a ...
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Such rules are there. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, lots of ham uses
"invisible" text so it's not useful as a spam sign by itself and it's hard
to come up w
On 12/22/2020 6:56 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address? I've tried
the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially lowers the
score and still runs normal tests. I'd like to disable RBL checks for
one address.
Grant,
First, I'm NOT an
Is there a way to bypass RBL checks for a specific address?
I've tried the all_spam_to option, but it looks like it artificially
lowers the score and still runs normal tests.
I'd like to disable RBL checks for one address.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptog
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Such rules are there. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, lots of ham
uses "invisible" text so it's not useful as a spam sign by itself and
it's hard to come up with any useful combination rules.
I think
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, @lbutlr wrote:
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Interesting. I remember in the early days of html spam there were various
rules to tag messages as spam when they had content
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, Axb wrote:
On 12/21/20 7:19 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Quick question for anyone who knows:
Are the email addresses in the various domains in the yahoo family (e.g.
yahoo.com, yahoo.com.hk, yahoo.com.my, yahoo.com.sg, yahoo.com.vn,
yahoo.co.jp, yahoo.co.nz, yahoo.co.th, yaho
