On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Thanks for all the answers. I am afraid I was being naive.
> I was explicitly thinking of a scenario like this: filter as
> much as possible 'unsolicited email' sent by some (possibly)
> 'infected' account.
>
> I thought that t
On 12.08.2014 08:43 Matus UHLAR wrote:
That means, much of rules that push over limit will not hit.
You still should not push required_score down, I remember outgoing mail
being blocked by inherited servers for hitting 7.0...
On 12.08.14 12:08, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
I was thinking about using
Hi all.
Thanks for all the answers. I am afraid I was being naive.
I was explicitly thinking of a scenario like this: filter as
much as possible 'unsolicited email' sent by some (possibly)
'infected' account.
I thought that turning off the bayesian classifier (and the
RBL checks) would still let
On 11.08.14 16:38, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
I am planning to install SA on our SMTP MTAs, which deals only with
outgoing traffic generated in the internal network.
I am making the assumption that our clients are mostly sending 'clean'
email (I know, I am trusting *a lot* my users but nevertheless..
On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 16:38 +0200, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
> I am planning to install SA on our SMTP MTAs, which deals only with
> outgoing traffic generated in the internal network.
Outgoing traffic. That means, most DNSBLs are either completely useless
or effectively disabled. You'll also need to
On 8/11/2014 10:38 AM, Matteo Dessalvi wrote:
Hi all.
This may be a very stupid question but I would like to ask you all
anyway.
I am planning to install SA on our SMTP MTAs, which deals only with
outgoing traffic generated in the internal network.
I am making the assumption that our clients ar
