Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Cami wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Cami wrote:
I'm not treating them as such. All I'm trying to do is stop
RBL checks happening for the 196.0.0.0/8 network.
trusted_networks 196.0.0.0/8 165.165.0.0/16 165.146.0.0/16
internal_networks 196.2.50.0/24
I have done so, yet i still fail to see how the behavior mimics that
of SA 2.64, both hosts in my trusted_networks and internal_network
still get checked against RBLs.
Perhaps you'd consider sharing a copy of the received headers from an
affected message so that we can do more than guess.
Oct 26 05:12:35 spamwall12.mweb.co.za amavis[14802]: (14802-03-59) SPAM, <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> -> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yes, Hits=
13.345 tag1=3.0 tag2=7.5 kill=7.5,
tests=BAYES_99=5.4,DBL_12_LETTER_PGIMG=0.2,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,MANGLED_FORM=2.3,MANGLED_HOME=2.3,MANGLED_MARK
ET=2.3,MANGLED_MEN=2.3,MANGLED_SHOP=2.3,MANGLED_YOUR=2.3,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946,RCVD_WHITELIST02=-8,SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,SPF_PASS=-0.001,
[196
.2.50.73], quarantine: FktQCBUUnfFa
X-Envelope-From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Quarantine-Id: <FktQCBUUnfFa>
Received: from anemone.mweb.co.za (anemone.mweb.co.za [196.2.50.73])
by postwall08.mweb.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BADE48
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:31 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from anemone.mweb.co.za (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by pwfilter01.mweb.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1982039F
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:28 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from anemone.mweb.co.za (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by anemone.mweb.co.za (nod32smtp); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:28 +0200
Received: from cpt-mailhost3.mweb.co.za (cpt-mailhost3.mweb.co.za
[196.2.42.199])
by anemone.mweb.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8785E2039A
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:28 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from postwall01.mweb.co.za (postwall01.mweb.co.za [196.2.42.21])
by cpt-mailhost3.mweb.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB09C631DB
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:28 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from viruswall02.mweb.co.za (viruswall02.mweb.co.za [196.2.50.228])
by pwfilter01.mweb.co.za (Postfix) with SMTP id AB68A4D
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:30 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from postwall03.mweb.co.za ([127.0.0.1])
by viruswall02.mweb.co.za ([196.2.50.228])
with SMTP (gateway) id A05A8C2C3DB; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:32 +0200
Received: from postwall03.mweb.co.za (postwall03.mweb.co.za [196.2.42.23])
by viruswall02.mweb.co.za (nod32smtp); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:32 +0200
Received: from n1.primary.taps-nodes.co.za (mx1.taps-nodes.co.za [196.30.81.82])
by postwall03.mweb.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FD243
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:12:30 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from n1.primary.taps-nodes.co.za (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by n1.primary.taps-nodes.co.za (8.12.9-20030917/8.12.9) with ESMTP id
j9Q3aIhI028055
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:36:18 +0200
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by n1.primary.taps-nodes.co.za (8.12.9-20030917/8.12.9/Submit) id
j9Q3aIqo028035;
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:36:18 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_11302977779387036"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.72; B3.01; Q3.01)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:36:17 UT
From: Pick `n Pay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Pick `n Pay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pick `n Pay newsletter for Carina Wiggill
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: TAPS Personalised Emailer
X-Contentsilo: _generic_
X-Usersilo: hs
X-Puid: 9f92e4f4a1a8151388652ad9179dcd5f
X-Nuid: partOfYourLife
X-Senddate: 2005-10-25 19:15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=13.345 tag=3 tag2=7.5 kill=7.5 tests=[BAYES_99=5.4,
DBL_12_LETTER_PGIMG=0.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_FORM=2.3,
MANGLED_HOME=2.3, MANGLED_MARKET=2.3, MANGLED_MEN=2.3, MANGLED_SHOP=2.3,
MANGLED_YOUR=2.3, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946, RCVD_WHITELIST02=-8,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 13.345
X-Spam-Level: *************
X-Spam-Flag: YES
Cami
