On søn 11 okt 2009 07:19:47 CEST, Adam Katz wrote
different return code to indicate the hit anyway so that I can act on it
anyway. *Especially* while DNSWLs lack an abuse-reporting mechanism.
spamassassin have firsttrusted for dnsbl same can go for dnswl testing
that mean if you have none or just very few trusted_networks dnswl
cant hit if used with firsttrusted
in case of dnswl.org send email to abuse with the ip or there id you
like to change for sending spam
and default sa does not have much trusted_networks, where is the
problem hidded ?
abuse ?, http://www.dnswl.org/ i have no problem with abuse
do you refer maybe to another whitelist that are ip based ?
I have seen SO much DNSWL'd spam that I've had to migrate to using
confirmation; like whitelist_from vs whitelist_auth on a DNSWL level.
whitelist_from is a joke (read candidate for being removed in sa)
whitelist_auth is power
In my khop-bl sa-update channel, any DNSWL'd message that doesn't pass
DKIM or SPF gains a point while any that does loses 2.25 (unless it's
already been lowered by overlapping DNSWL scores). ... actually, I'm
surprised I gave it such a swing given spammers' increasing use of SPF
and DKIM.
thats why newer make such stupid meta rules :)
only whitelist non spammers, if a spf or dkim spams remove from whitelist
did you blindly do whitelist_auth *...@hotmail.com ? :)
--
xpoint
