s - like, large banks - would probably be a
> good idea. By default, for all domains, not so much.
If I only had a ready-made list of those important domains.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47:
> > >
> > > > 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
>
> > Benny Pedersen wrote: feel free to add into local.cf
> > > score SPF_FAIL (5)
RW wrote:
>
> Please don't hijack existing threads.
Oh, sorry about that.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47:
>
> > 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
>
> feel free to add into local.cf
>
> score SPF_FAIL (5) (5) (5) (5)
>
> this will add 5 points to default score
I
rd fail (a "-all") in
this case.
I can probably bump up the score for SPF_FAIL but would like to know
first why it is a 0.0 by default. This was probably someone's
well-grounded decision?
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
signa
t
keep the old white* and black* in my local.cf, and put up with the
deprecation warning in the Spam Report. Is this correct?
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ed, please rerun with
debug enabled for more information
Am I not supposed to replace whitelist with welcomelist in my configs?
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
one with a
> hostname which has been "verified".
[dd]
>
> Yes. See attached patch.
There is a minor problem with your patch. The helo= appears empty.
I think you can safely put that
$rdns = $1; $helo = $1
>
> Post a bug report about the CommuniGate Pro Received head
trust the Received: headers inserted by your mail servers.
The topmost Received: header is always inserted by my mail server.
But if the relay mentioned in this topmost header is in the list of
trusted_networks, whitelist_from_rcvd does not work.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SM wrote:
> Hi Victor,
> At 21:40 09-04-2008, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> >This is the standard CommuniGate Pro "Received:" header.
> >When HELO matches the hostname, this header always looks this way,
> >with the word "verified" added to it.
>
> Spam
eceived.pm?
I think exim does the same if HELO matches the hostname. This is a
sample exim header:
Received: from relay2.tomsk.ru ([212.73.124.8])
by gw.dtdm.tomsk.ru with esmtps (SSLv3:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
(Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1JjoVV-0008Wl-8E
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:35:29 +0700
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> to dtu.net.tomline.ru.The forward and reverse DNS should
> match. You'll have to fix that as well.
Look at the example with mncs.tomsk.ru please. The forward and reverse
DNS match for this relay, but rdns is still empty. I am inclined to
think it is a parsing bug.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Victor Sudakov wrote:
>
> OK, this was a poor example. Here is a better one. Let's start anew :)
>
> The rule is
> whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] mncs.tomsk.ru
>
> The relay is mncs.tomsk.ru, as you see, whose forward and reverse DNS
> mapping is correct.
&g
rity: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6404/Thu Mar 27 01:31:21 2008 on mncs.tomsk.ru
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,
put, that's why I
have asked for help. Thanks in advance for any input.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > SM wrote:
> > > At 22:02 08-04-2008, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> > > >I have the following rule in local.cf:
> > > >whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] dtdm.tomsk.ru
> > > >
> > > >Please h
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> > >I have the following rule in local.cf:
> > >whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] dtdm.tomsk.ru
> > >
> > >Please help me figure out why the rule does not work. Below is a sample
> > >message where I think the rule shou
SM wrote:
> At 22:02 08-04-2008, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> >I have the following rule in local.cf:
> >whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] dtdm.tomsk.ru
> >
> >Please help me figure out why the rule does not work. Below is a sample
> >message where I think the rule
m using SpamAssassin-3.2.4_2 from the FreeBSD ports collection,
perl-5.8.8, FreeBSD 6.2.
--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
