Re: whitelist_from_rcvd problem

2007-04-26 Thread Duane Hill 

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:


On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Bret Miller wrote:


I said:
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbc.com


try:

 whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] *.sbc.com


If that does work, it goes against what is documented. I haven't had any 
problem with whitelist_from_rcvd in the way Bret has illustrated.


"The first parameter is the address to whitelist, and the second is a
 string to match the relay's rDNS.

 This string is matched against the reverse DNS lookup used during the
 handover from the internet to your internal network's mail exchangers.
 It can either be the full hostname, or the domain component of that
 hostname."

Re: whitelist_from_rcvd problem

2007-04-26 Thread John D. Hardin 
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Bret Miller wrote:

> I said:
> whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbc.com

try:

  whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] *.sbc.com

--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  Judicial Activism (n): interpreting the Constitution to grant the
  government powers that are popularly felt to be "needed" but that
  are not explicitly provided for therein (common definition);
  interpreting the Constitution as it is written (Brady definition)
---
 558 days until the Presidential Election

RE: whitelist_from_rcvd problem

2007-04-26 Thread Bret Miller 
> One of my users is supposed to get messages from this person, but they
> often get marked as spam. So I want to whitelist, and I can use
> whitelist_from, but I want to use whitelist_from_rcvd. BUT, it doesn't
> work for me.
>
> I said:
> whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbc.com
>
> Which I think means that as long as his e-mail comes from any host in
> any subdomain of sbc.com, it should be whitelisted. But the message
> didn't hit the whitelist. (Headers below.)

OK, never mind. Upgrading to rc3 (or something in the update process)
fixed this.

Bret



>
> Before I opened a bug ticket, I just wanted to make sure my reasoning
> was sound in thinking that this should have been whitelisted by the
> above configuration entry. (I've had to report bugs previously with
> whitelist_spf not parsing the received headers from
> CommuniGate Pro, so
> perhaps this is related. I wonder if the header-parsing code is a
> central routine of if each plugin has its own way of doing it...)
>
> Thanks,
> Bret
>
>
>
> X-Spam-Tests:
> tests=AWL=4.115,BAYES_50=0.001,DKIM_POLICY_SIGNSOME=0.001,
>   FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RCVD_IN_MXRATE_WL=-1,
>   RDNS_NONE=0.1;autolearn=no
> X-Spam-Score: 4.7
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-rc2 (2007-04-13) on
> mail.hq.wcg.org
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.6a5
> X-WCG-CGPSA-Filter: Scanned
> X-SPAM-FLAG: Yes
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from nlpi029.sbcis.sbc.com ([207.115.36.58] verified)
>   by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8)
>   with ESMTP id 21043544 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu,
> 26 Apr 2007
> 11:37:26 -0700
> Received-SPF: none
>  receiver=mail.wcg.org; client-ip=207.115.36.58;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-ORBL: [63.198.171.170]
> Received: from JBROD (adsl-63-198-171-170.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net
> [63.198.171.170])
>   by nlpi029.sbcis.sbc.com (8.13.8 out.dk.spool/8.13.8) with ESMTP
> id l3QIUgM5027947
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:31:11 -0500
> From: "Jon Brod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Bernie Schnippert'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: California/Ontario Estate Matter
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:30:09 -0700
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>   boundary="=_NextPart_000_0010_01C787F6.4582C0D0"
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
> Importance: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>