On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:13 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> > > The XBL however, has the "notfirsthop" restriction. It won't match
> > > any messages that have no trusted relays. Based on the debug
> > > output, there were no trusted relays, thus XBL would not have
At 11:13 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> The XBL however, has the "notfirsthop" restriction. It won't match
> any messages that have no trusted relays. Based on the debug
> output, there were no trusted relays, thus XBL would not have
> matched for this reason.
I think I follow this for why i
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 10:01 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
> >When the spam in question arrived, several rules did not appear to
> >fire; specifically the two RBLs RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and
> >RCVD_IN_XBL, as well as URIBL_OB_SURBL.
>
> Well, The URIBL and Spamcop c
At 10:01 AM 2/12/2005, Theodore Heise wrote:
When the spam in question arrived, several rules did not appear to
fire; specifically the two RBLs RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET and
RCVD_IN_XBL, as well as URIBL_OB_SURBL.
Well, The URIBL and Spamcop changes are almost certainly due to time
difference. Those
