On Fri, 24 May 2019, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2019, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I see. This is another case where local clients hit bunch of rules
designed
to catch remote bots.
I'm thinking if I should disable the rule or if it's better to re-write it
only to match on
On Thu, 23 May 2019, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I see. This is another case where local clients hit bunch of rules designed
to catch remote bots.
I'm thinking if I should disable the rule or if it's better to re-write it
only to match on remote (untrusted) hosts.
On 23.05.19 14:09, John Ha
On Thu, 23 May 2019, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I see. This is another case where local clients hit bunch of rules designed
to catch remote bots.
I'm thinking if I should disable the rule or if it's better to re-write it
only to match on remote (untrusted) hosts.
Probably the latter. For a
On Thu, 23 May 2019 19:52:41 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 22.05.19 09:34, John Hardin wrote:
>> >I'm surprised it's still present - the masscheck corpus spam/ham
>> >is
>
>> >It could probably be safely removed if there's any question about
>> >it.
>On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:59:01 +02
On Thu, 23 May 2019 19:52:41 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> On 22.05.19 09:34, John Hardin wrote:
> >> >I'm surprised it's still present - the masscheck corpus spam/ham
> >> >is
> >
> >> >It could probably be safely removed if there's any question about
> >> >it.
>
> >On Thu, 23
On 22.05.19 09:34, John Hardin wrote:
>I'm surprised it's still present - the masscheck corpus spam/ham is
>It could probably be safely removed if there's any question about
>it.
On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:59:01 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
well, the score is still high:
score TVD_RCVD_
On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:50:22 +0100
RW wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:59:01 +0200
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>
> > On 22.05.19 09:34, John Hardin wrote:
> > >I'm surprised it's still present - the masscheck corpus spam/ham
> > >is
>
> > >It could probably be safely removed if there'
On Thu, 23 May 2019 16:59:01 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 22.05.19 09:34, John Hardin wrote:
> >I'm surprised it's still present - the masscheck corpus spam/ham is
> >It could probably be safely removed if there's any question about
> >it.
>
> well, the score is still high:
>
>
anyone has idea what exactly is TVD_RCVD_SINGLE supposed to catch?
According to description:
describe TVD_RCVD_SINGLE Message was received from localhost
however, according to the RE:
header TVD_RCVD_SINGLE Received =~ /^from\s+(?!localhost)[^\s.a-z0-9-]+\s/
it will catch any helo hostnames
On Wed, 22 May 2019 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2019, Alex Woick wrote:
>
> > It seems the rule is some degenerated relict of a once even more
> > complicated rule.
>
> I'm surprised it's still present - the masscheck corpus spam/ham is
> zero/zero:
That's proba
On 22 May 2019, at 12:34, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2019, Alex Woick wrote:
The description is strangely wrong. It seems the person who created
the description didn't understand what the rule does. He probably
wasn't the rule creator. Or the rule was changed to the opposite
without u
On Wed, 22 May 2019, Alex Woick wrote:
The description is strangely wrong. It seems the person who created the
description didn't understand what the rule does. He probably wasn't the rule
creator. Or the rule was changed to the opposite without updating the
description.
The rule itself is als
The description is strangely wrong. It seems the person who created the
description didn't understand what the rule does. He probably wasn't the
rule creator. Or the rule was changed to the opposite without updating
the description.
The rule itself is also somewhat strange, because (?!localhost)
13 matches
Mail list logo
