urgrue wrote:
>
>> The auto-whitelist has nothing to do with anything that says
>> WHITELISTED.
>>
>> The auto-whitelist will show up as a rule named AWL. Nothing else.
>>
>> That said, can you be VERY specific about what your headers say?
>>
>> Does it say USER_IN_WHITELIST?
>>
>> If so, check yo
John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>
>> In particular, make sure you didn't do anything like the common
>> mistake of "whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Any spammer can
>> trivially forge a From: or Return-Path header, and forging your
>> own domain in these fiel
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:34:35PM +0200, urgrue wrote:
> It says, precisely:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=- tagged_above=-.0 required=5.0 WHITELISTED
>
> So if its not whitelist_from or the AWL, what can it be?
That's not an SA header, so I'm guessing you call SA from a third party
daemon. I'd
The auto-whitelist has nothing to do with anything that says WHITELISTED.
The auto-whitelist will show up as a rule named AWL. Nothing else.
That said, can you be VERY specific about what your headers say?
Does it say USER_IN_WHITELIST?
If so, check your whitelist_from and whitelist_from_rc
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Matt Kettler wrote:
> In particular, make sure you didn't do anything like the common
> mistake of "whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Any spammer can
> trivially forge a From: or Return-Path header, and forging your
> own domain in these fields is a common tactic because spam
urgrue wrote:
> I'm having a whitelist-related problem.
> -a lot of spam comes through with WHITELISTED in the headers, yet i
> can never find the senders, IPs, etc of said messages in any
> whitelists, including the auto-whitelist.
> -auto-whitelist is in use although I've disabled it everywhere.
