Theo Van Dinter says:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:41:43PM -0800, M. Brownsworth wrote: > Note that it does report "USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO," but it still doesn'tadd -100 to keep the score below the 5.0 threshold. Experimenting, IOf course not, the score for USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO is -6.
-6? Then how can you effectively prevent an address's mail from being intercepted and quarantined? If someone doesn't want filtering when SpamAssassin is being run server-wide, I thought whitelist_to was the way to do it. If not, then how?
Be that as it may, it seems that whitelist_to in local.cf (or 60_whitelist.cf, for that matter) is completely ineffective, regardless. Doesn't even cause a USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO in the header and doesn't add -6 to the total.
> It added -100 to the score, exactly what it's supposed to do. Yes, the score for USER_IN_WHITELIST is -100. and you should upgrade from 2.20, it's very old at this point.
Good point -- will do. You think that will solve the whitelist problems I've been seeing?
.\\ichelle
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
The Golden Gate wasn't our fault either, but we still put a bridge across it.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
Attachment converted: MacOS 9.1:Untitled 3 (????/----) (0000BEFB)
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
