Dave Warren <li...@hireahit.com> writes: > On 9/16/2012 1:37 AM, Niamh Holding wrote: >> Hello Dave, >> >> Sunday, September 16, 2012, 8:31:56 AM, you wrote: >> >> DW> better filtering by listing them as trusted_networks >> >> Better filtering by not scoring them as a known spam source! >> > > Correct me if I'm wrong here, but trusted_networks will score them > just the same, but it will also score against the IPs found in the > Received headers. This means that if someone who is DNSBL listed > relays through MessageLabs, it will help get the message filtered > above and beyond MessageLabs' own scoring, if applicable. > > I'm having trouble seeing the downside here, but I might be missing > something obvious...?
There is an ALL_TRUSTED rule. The default score is mild, around -1.5. I use a much higher negative score, because spam that *originates* from a host marked as trusted I want to identify and report (and perhaps reconsider trusted). So a server that relays messagse (that might be spam) and also originates mail (that might be spam) is really probelmatic; they should have separate machines for that, in separate ranges. It should also be possible to have a subclass of trusted_networks that doesn't get included in ALL_TRUSTED.
pgpXFmQbbM00d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
