Hi,
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Kevin A. McGrail
<kevin.mcgr...@mcgrail.com> wrote:
> Chris & all,
> I have opened a bug about this:
> https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7471
>
> I believe scoring it 0 for now will disable the rule but that's just hiding
> the issue.
>
> Thanks for bringing it to the list, Chris.
I'm using b.barracuda.org with postfix. Perhaps you could also use
bb.barracuda.org there as well? Does it make sense to use it for both
SA and postfix?
postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 8
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
mykey.zen.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.0.[10;11]*8
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[0..19]*5
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[20..29]*4
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[30..49]*3
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[50..59]*2
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[60..69]*1
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[70..79]*-1
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[80..89]*-2
score.senderscore.com=127.0.4.[90..100]*-3
b.barracudacentral.org*7
mykey.zen.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.0.[4..7]*6
bl.mailspike.net*4
bl.spamcop.net*4
bl.spameatingmonkey.net*4
mykey.zen.dq.spamhaus.net=127.0.0.3*4
mykey.invaluement.com=127.0.0.2*8
mykey24.invaluement.com=127.0.0.2*6
ubl.unsubscore.com=127.0.0.2*1
list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].0*-2
list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].1*-3
list.dnswl.org=127.[0..255].[0..255].[2..255]*-4
dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.[10;14]*8
dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.5*7
dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.7*4
dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.6*3
dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.[8;9]*2
dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.4*1
