> On Jun 3, 2024, at 4:09 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> I forgot to add that I have "lowered" (increased to small negative number)
> scores for RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_*, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* and RCVD_IN_IADB_*
> because I has similar bad experience with them.
Matus, if you EVER have a bad exper
On 6/5/24 13:14, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there
are new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole wrote:
It
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when
there are new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole wrote:
It is updated where it is actually used, on the ASF r
On 6/5/24 11:14, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
On 6/5/24 09:17, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn'
On 6/5/24 09:17, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole wrote:
It
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
On 03.06.24 08:52, Bill Cole wrote:
It is updated where it is actually used, on the ASF r
Thanks for your help. I tried to reproduce the problem by reverting my
changes to investigate it further with my newly learned knowledge, but
now it works as intended, even when I get an "Excessive Queries" response.
IDK, perhaps the problem was something else and I "fixed" it by coincidence…
A
On 2024-06-03 at 08:35:32 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:35:32 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
I think that the active.list file should be updated, when there are
new rules, shouldn't it?
It is updated where it is actually used, on the ASF rule maintenance
system. It is irre
On 2024-06-03 at 01:26:31 UTC-0400 (Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:26:31 +0200)
postgarage Graz IT
is rumored to have said:
Now for my questions:
*) as is stated in active.list it should not be edited. What's the
correct place to add the new rules to activate them? local.cf?
Yes. In your local version o
On 6/3/24 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
>> A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
>> turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
>> RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matc
On 03.06.24 12:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matched.
I
On 03.06.24 07:26, postgarage Graz IT wrote:
A few days ago a lot of false negatives landed in our inboxes. As it
turned out the reason was that the for nearly all mails the
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE rules matched.
I now know that validity introduced a query limit wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
