Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 23:58 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
or more generic make a ticket if its in public intrest to make it
generic change :)
It is not.
Indeed, and just to clarify, deep parsing of received headers works
reasonably well *for the spamcop list*
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 00:23 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > > or more generic make a ticket if its in public intrest to make it
> > > generic change :)
> >
> > It is not. Did you follow the entire thread?
> sorry to be ot here, will stop from now and get my work done
Don't worry, it wasn't off-
On lør 21 aug 2010 00:15:48 CEST, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 23:58 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
or more generic make a ticket if its in public intrest to make it
generic change :)
It is not. Did you follow the entire thread?
i hope i have, i have a night work to change
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 23:58 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> or more generic make a ticket if its in public intrest to make it
> generic change :)
It is not. Did you follow the entire thread?
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t
On fre 20 aug 2010 23:33:09 CEST, Ned Slider wrote
Make sure you make that change to your local.cf (or similar), and not
or more generic make a ticket if its in public intrest to make it
generic change :)
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > > I'd really like limit SpamAssassin's "RCVD_*" DNSBL checks only to
> > > hosts that directly deliver e-mails to our servers,
>
> >change:
> >header RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET eval:check_rbl_txt('spamcop',
> >'bl.spamcop.net.', '(?i:spamcop)')
> It seems like the answer I was looking for. Thank
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:54:57PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Moreover, IMHO you are barking up the wrong tree. In your OP you said, a
> > message has been *rejected* by your SMTP. Yet, you are focusing entirely
> > on the RCVD
On 20/08/10 22:08, Jacek Politowski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:55:13PM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:34 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I'd really like limit SpamAssassin's "RCVD_*" DNSBL checks only to
hosts that directly deliver e-mails to our servers,
ch
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:55:13PM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:34 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
>> I'd really like limit SpamAssassin's "RCVD_*" DNSBL checks only to
>> hosts that directly deliver e-mails to our servers,
>change:
>header RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET eval
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:54:57PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:34 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
>> I'd really like limit SpamAssassin's "RCVD_*" DNSBL checks only to
>> hosts that directly deliver e-mails to our servers, but it seems I'm
>> missing something in SA
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:34 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> I'd really like limit SpamAssassin's "RCVD_*" DNSBL checks only to
> hosts that directly deliver e-mails to our servers, but it seems I'm
> missing something in SA docum
On fre 20 aug 2010 20:34:51 CEST, Jacek Politowski wrote
I'd really like limit SpamAssassin's "RCVD_*" DNSBL checks only to
hosts that directly deliver e-mails to our servers, but it seems I'm
missing something in SA documentation (I can hardly believe there is
no such possibility in SA).
trust
Le vendredi 20 août 2010 à 20:34 +0200, Jacek Politowski a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> >trusted_networks smarthost-ip/cidr
> >
> >here i exlude listed ips that are listed in some rbl, but clearly to
> >me should not be listed, now you found such i
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:54 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Because it depends. Some lists are suitable for deep-parsing. Some are
> not.
>
>
> Moreover, IMHO you are barking up the wrong tree. In your OP you said, a
> message has been *rejected* by your SMTP. Yet, you are focusing entirely
>
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:34 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> Actually, the IP I've found _should_ be listed in DNSBL - I don't want
> to receive any e-mail directly from this host (some DSL line with
> abusable web server running on it...).
>
> Receiving e-mails via "some_big_MSP_smarthost" is com
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Actually, the IP I've found _should_ be listed in DNSBL - I don't want
to receive any e-mail directly from this host (some DSL line with
abusable web server running on it...).
Receiving e-mails via "some_big_MSP_smarthost" is completely another
thing
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>trusted_networks smarthost-ip/cidr
>
>here i exlude listed ips that are listed in some rbl, but clearly to
>me should not be listed, now you found such ip ? :)
Actually, the IP I've found _should_ be listed in DNSBL - I don't want
t
On fre 20 aug 2010 15:45:05 CEST, Jacek Politowski wrote
What is the preferred way to deal with situations like described
above?
trusted_networks smarthost-ip/cidr
here i exlude listed ips that are listed in some rbl, but clearly to
me should not be listed, now you found such ip ? :)
--
xp
18 matches
Mail list logo
