On Saturday, September 2, 2006, 8:43:21 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 8:46 am, SM wrote:
>> At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
>> >I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
>> >Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS r
On Saturday 02 September 2006 8:46 am, SM wrote:
> At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
> >I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
> >Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
> >noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these ent
At 20:22 01-09-2006, Chris wrote:
I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these entries telling
[snip]
Sep 1 21:51:25 localhost spamd[109
On Friday, September 1, 2006, 8:22:42 PM, Chris Chris wrote:
> I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
> Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
> noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these entries telling
> me? Seco
On Friday 01 September 2006 10:35 pm, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:22:42PM -0500, Chris wrote:
> > First of all, what are these entries telling me? Secondly, if this
> > is an error in the uridnsbl plug-in is it possibly caused by the change
> > in nameservers?
>
> The error
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:22:42PM -0500, Chris wrote:
> First of all, what are these entries telling me? Secondly, if this
> is an error in the uridnsbl plug-in is it possibly caused by the change
> in nameservers?
The error is saying that it's looking for a 127/8 result, but it gets
208.67.219.4
I've been testing OpenDNS tonight vice using Earthlinks DNS nameservers.
Looking at my hourly syslog snip, about half way through my NANAS run I
noticed the below entries. First of all, what are these entries telling
me? Secondly, if this is an error in the uridnsbl plug-in is it possibly
cau
On Tuesday, February 15, 2005, 10:45:47 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> Austin Weidner writes:
>> Why am I getting around 20 lines of this in a spamassassin --lint -D:
>>
>> debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa89414c)
>> inhibited further callbacks
>>
>> What is URIDNSBL and wh
hits=0.1 required=10.0
> tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO
>Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
>From: Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'Matt Kettler'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Austin Weidner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, users@spama
>surbl.org is the biggest source of URIDNSBLs.
Is there another? :)
--Chris (Oh no! We're the Microsoft of URIDNSBLs! All your domains are
belong to us!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Austin Weidner writes:
> Why am I getting around 20 lines of this in a spamassassin --lint -D:
>
> debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa89414c)
> inhibited further callbacks
>
> What is URIDNSBL and what is this error?
that's
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa89414c)
> >inhibited further callbacks
>
> It's not an error, it's a debugging informational message only.. It's
> highly important to plugin writing and debugging, but oth
At 12:38 PM 2/15/2005, Austin Weidner wrote:
Why am I getting around 20 lines of this in a spamassassin --lint -D:
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa89414c)
inhibited further callbacks
What is URIDNSBL and what is this error?
It's not an error, it's a debugging information
Why am I getting around 20 lines of this in a spamassassin --lint -D:
debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0xa89414c)
inhibited further callbacks
What is URIDNSBL and what is this error?
Thanks
14 matches
Mail list logo
