Lutz Petersen skrev den 2013-02-07 10:34:
Seems misunderstanding. Better I give you a real example (shortend to
be readably and anonymous):
Return-Path: <wirtschaftswo...@derborse-fur-dummies.net>
dnswl is not domain based !
* -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
high trust
* [194.50.69.1 listed in list.dnswl.org]
DNSWL Id 20763 - mobile.de
IP range 194.50.69.1/32
Domain/Hostname mail46-1.mobile.de
Score hi
Daily/monthly magnitude 4.2/4.3
* 1.7 URIBL_DBL_SPAM Contains an URL listed in the DBL blocklist
* [URIs: thebinarysistema.com]
this test is domain based
* 1.0 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters
* 2.0 FS_LARGE_PERCENT2 Larger than 100% in subj.
* 1.1 DCC_CHECK Als Massen-E-Mail erkannt von DCC (dcc-servers.net)
-------
= 0.8 = No Spam
Without the -5.0 DNSWL_HI it would have been tagged
(correct) as spam with 5.8
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.mobile.de) (194.50.69.1)
unknown reverse dns ?
Received: from derborse-fur-dummies.net (derborse-fur-dummies.net
[37.59.206.107])
by mail.mobile.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for
<spamvic...@mobile.de>
IP address 37.59.206.107 is not whitelisted at dnswl.org.
should i repeat myself now ? :=)
you miss the dnswl hi score ip in trusted_networks
