On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:10:17PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>
> Here are the default scores for the DNSWLs I know of:
>
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 0 -1 0 -1
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 0 -4 0 -4
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 0 -8 0 -8
> RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5 # (nondefault rule, Marc's suggested score)
You have to remembe
Matthias Leisi wrote (accidentally off-list):
> Adam Katz schrieb:
>
>> My last report was sent at 2009-04-10 17:50:30 UTC to ad...@dnswl.org
>> with subject "Suggested Change DNSWL Id 3523"
>
> That's cvent-planner.com. Based on your report and others we received,
> we lowered the score for thei
Matthias Leisi wrote:
> Did you report them to us? If there are *myriads*, there must be some
> serious error which we need to fix (IPs/ranges falsely listed,
> inappropriate trust levels listed, sometimes also errors in eg how
> trusted_networks are set up).
My last report was sent at 2009-04-10
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On søn 11 okt 2009 07:19:47 CEST, Adam Katz wrote
>
>> different return code to indicate the hit anyway so that I can act on it
>> anyway. *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
>
> spamassassin have firsttrusted for dnsbl same can go for dnswl testi
Adam Katz schrieb:
> I've had myriads of falsely whitelisted messages hit DNSWL (.org) and
Did you report them to us? If there are *myriads*, there must be some
serious error which we need to fix (IPs/ranges falsely listed,
inappropriate trust levels listed, sometimes also errors in eg how
trus
Henrik K wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>> *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
>>
>> I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using
>
> Just to be clear, what DNSWLs are you talking about? It's a bit
> confusing as t
