On 10-Dec-2008, at 16:01, mouss wrote:
while the whitelisting part is ok, the "blacklisting" part is risky:
- they could mess up with their dns config during an update.... or
they
could add a new MTA, or reconfigure their MTA and "forget" to pass
throgh the dkim signing application...
- they may want to allow some of their users to post via their ISP,
hotel,
- ...
so 5 is a little too high.
Ah, gotcha. I am scoring whitelist at -5 though, so a 5 still puts
them at 0. Without other spam tags, they should still pass, no?
On 10-Dec-2008, at 16:52, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, December 10, 2008 23:16, LuKreme wrote:
Which would, I think, score them a full 5 points up for failing
DKIM, but give them a negative score from USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST?
try:
def_whitelist_auth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
whitelist_auth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why have the extra step with add score for not verified ?
Because, let's say comapny.tld is mybank.tld and messages that fail to
pass the check should be tagged up, right?
--
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K
