John Hardin wrote
> The problem is that there are no Received headers internal to his domain,
> and that makes it look like a MUA is directly contacting your MTA to send
> an email - hence, "DIRECT_TO_MX".
>
> If you can, advise the sender to not remove all the Received headers from
> their ema
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 17:38:52 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:37:47 -0800 (PST)
> >John Hardin wrote:
> >> That a given rule hits on some ham does not make the rule a FP.
> >> This rule is working as designed.
>
> On 31.01.20 15:09, RW wrote:
> >DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX i
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:37:47 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
That a given rule hits on some ham does not make the rule a FP. This
rule is working as designed.
On 31.01.20 15:09, RW wrote:
DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX is defined in 72_active.cf, but its score is in
50_scores.cf, set 10 years ago. Is that s
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:37:47 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> That a given rule hits on some ham does not make the rule a FP. This
> rule is working as designed.
DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX is defined in 72_active.cf, but its score is in
50_scores.cf, set 10 years ago. Is that supposed to happen?
On 1/30/2020 6:37 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> The problem is that there are no Received headers internal to his
> domain, and that makes it look like a MUA is directly contacting your
> MTA to send an email - hence, "DIRECT_TO_MX".
>
> If you can, advise the sender to not remove all the Received heade
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020, premax wrote:
Hello there,
The sender is using Outlook and his own mail server. Mail comes to my
server and scores against DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX, because of
__DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX false positive. I've been looking into message
headers for hours and see nothing strange
Hello there,
The sender is using Outlook and his own mail server. Mail comes to my server
and scores against DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX, because of __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX false
positive. I've been looking into message headers for hours and see nothing
strange over there. 'Received' header are
