On Sat, January 10, 2009 09:15, mouss wrote:
> Not necessarily. you can extend trust if this brings you more
> benefits than problems.
msa_networks depends on trusted_networks, does it make sense ?
maybe, maybe not but i keep my trusted at very few, olso so dns
whitelist will be quered to give m
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
> On Fri, January 9, 2009 22:44, mouss wrote:
>
>> # spf/dkim/dk
>> whitelist_from_auth payme...@paypal.com
>
> this one does not exists
>
> whitelist_auth
> def_whitelist_auth
> unwhitelist_auth
>
> does
>
thanks for the correction. next time, I'll cut-n-paste inste
On Fri, January 9, 2009 22:44, mouss wrote:
> # spf/dkim/dk
> whitelist_from_auth payme...@paypal.com
this one does not exists
whitelist_auth
def_whitelist_auth
unwhitelist_auth
does
see perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf and corsponding plugin docs
> you should also make sure your trusted_n
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, mouss wrote:
Anyway, I just tried (with a tagged address) and my SA didn't say
anything about the message. so what's the problem?
The problem is not in SA. Apparently he's using a defunct DNSBL that's
overriding the SA score. SA scored the message negative 40-mumble, which
Please use a mailer that obeys the "Reply-To:" header. mo...@ml.* is
reserved for mailing list mail (i.e. mail coming from list servers).
ndwor...@ix.netcom.com a écrit :
> It's not spam, it's a reply to a mailing list sign up form. The
> customer signs up and then receives a free drink at our
Please do not top-post.
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:48 -0800, fbpc wrote:
> Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
> don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
> triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, whi
Evan Platt wrote on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:01:50 -0800:
> If there's a few pages of quoted text, it shows ...snip and for
> some reason, removes odd things, like in this case, the Nabble tag. Any ideas?
It's a signature. I have configured my reader to grey them out, so they don't
distract, but
At 09:48 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
The footer at the bottom of the original message is a hint as to why
your advice won't be understood. :-)
Regards,
-sm
AARGH!
Ok, unless someone here knows, I'll ask in an Eudora group... I
turned Header mode to Terse. Only shows the From, To, and subject
At 18:40 08-01-2009, Evan Platt wrote:
For the THIRD time, SpamAssassin is not marking the mail as Spam.
Mailscanner is. You need to ask on a mailscanner list.
The footer at the bottom of the original message is a hint as to why
your advice won't be understood. :-)
Regards,
-sm
For the THIRD time, SpamAssassin is not marking the mail as Spam.
Mailscanner is. You need to ask on a mailscanner list.
At 06:15 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
Yes it is my server. My SPF and I have Domain Keys as well. Not sure why
that's relevant.
I have followed the instructions on the SpamAss
On Fri, January 9, 2009 03:15, fbpc wrote:
> Yes it is my server. My SPF and I have Domain Keys as well. Not
> sure why that's relevant.
if you dont know that then remove them
> I have followed the instructions on the SpamAssasin website, but
> although the headers show that the whitelist is r
Yes it is my server. My SPF and I have Domain Keys as well. Not sure why
that's relevant.
I have followed the instructions on the SpamAssasin website, but although
the headers show that the whitelist is recognized, the program is still
changing the subjects of my emails.
I supose I could go
On Fri, January 9, 2009 02:48, fbpc wrote:
> I came to this forum just to get some help: how do I whitelist
> myself effectively.
i can olso ask why whitelist at all is needed ?
but here:
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=fbpc.com&submit=Go!
v=spf1 a mx ip4:64.202.0.1/16 ip4:69.94.64
At 05:48 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, which
is a neighborhood bar/nightclub in Gree
Look, I'm not sending spam, I'm sending REPLY coupons to customers. If you
don't believe me, go to my website www.fbpc.com. I believe the PORN is
triggered because the full name of the bar is the Fat Black Pussycat, which
is a neighborhood bar/nightclub in Greenwich Village. The name has existe
On Thu, January 8, 2009 21:59, Evan Platt wrote:
> 1. Why are you checking outgoing mail?
if he did not, maybe the sender ip will be blacklisted, much better
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 21:59 +0100, mouss wrote:
> fbpc a écrit :
> > I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> > *...@fbpc.com
>
> don't do that. now spammers know how to evade your filters.
> use reject_from_rcvd or reject_from_auth instead.
>
> but wait. this looks
On Thu, January 8, 2009 21:54, fbpc wrote:
> I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> *...@fbpc.com
newer use that whitelist_from anywhere !
even mailscanner can be fooled
> X-FBPC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not
> cached,
> score=-47.
fbpc wrote:
> I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> *...@fbpc.com
>
The above file is a MailScanner config file not a SpamAssassin config
file, it should NOT contain statements of that format. MailScanner's
whitelisting options are formatted differently (I don't
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, fbpc wrote:
...
X-FBPC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached,
...
In light of all the other comments already given, I couldn't help to
notice the 'ORDB-RBL' in the MailScanner header. I'm assuming that is the
ordb.org RBL that's been dead for qui
At 12:54 PM 1/8/2009, you wrote:
I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
*...@fbpc.com
But outgoing emails are still getting stopped as spam. The whitelist seems
to be recognized in the headers, but the subject line still gets tagged with
a {SPAM} and the mail gets
fbpc a écrit :
> I have whitelisted in my spam.whitelist.rules file: whitelist_from
> *...@fbpc.com
>
don't do that. now spammers know how to evade your filters.
use reject_from_rcvd or reject_from_auth instead.
but wait. this looks like spam to me. if it is, why are you sending it?
> But ou
22 matches
Mail list logo
