On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:20 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> >> Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
> >> of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
>
> On 1
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
On 17.12.11 12:16, Noel Butler wrote:
Lastly, I would have thought SA dev team woul
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
> of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
>
Plenty of people can attest to the fact there is no payment taking
place, its
On 12/16, Lutz Petersen wrote:
>
> I know some of the discussions in the past about usage of Sorbs RBLs
> in Spamassassin. The scores today are as follows:
>
> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
> score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 2.499 0 0.
Interesting. Will cross-post to dev and see if anyone has some
input.
On 12/16/2011 12:22 PM, Lutz Petersen wrote:
I know some of the discussions in the past about usage of Sorbs RBLs
in Spamassassin. The scores today are as follows:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0
I know some of the discussions in the past about usage of Sorbs RBLs
in Spamassassin. The scores today are as follows:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 2.499 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 # n=
