Le 29/12/2010 20:18, Philip Van Pelt a écrit :
> mouss schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 20:01 [+0100]:
>> Let me ask my question more precisely: is the _string_ after the '@'
>> sign the same for both addresses? please note that I am not talking
>> about delivery or virtual things. just the string.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:26:08PM +0100, Philip Van Pelt wrote:
> Dennis Guhl schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 20:14 [+0100]:
> [snip]
> >
> > It seems you have a condition in your sieve script which only matches
> > t...@example.com but not al...@example.com.
> >
> Well, I thought about that one too
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:26:08PM +0100, Philip Van Pelt wrote:
> Dennis Guhl schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 20:14 [+0100]:
> [snip]
> >
> > It seems you have a condition in your sieve script which only matches
> > t...@example.com but not al...@example.com.
> >
> Well, I thought about that one to
Dennis Guhl schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 20:14 [+0100]:
[snip]
>
> It seems you have a condition in your sieve script which only matches
> t...@example.com but not al...@example.com.
>
Well, I thought about that one too. But as I examine the mail in my
mailbox, no X-Spam-Flag is present. So the pr
mouss schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 20:01 [+0100]:
> Let me ask my question more precisely: is the _string_ after the '@'
> sign the same for both addresses? please note that I am not talking
> about delivery or virtual things. just the string.
The domain (the _string_ after the @) is exactly the sa
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 07:54:08PM +0100, Philip Van Pelt wrote:
> mouss schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 19:20 [+0100]:
> > Le 29/12/2010 18:25, Philip Van Pelt a écrit :
[..]
> I use only one domain; t...@example.com is a normal (but virtual) user
> and al...@example.com is an alias for this same u
Le 29/12/2010 19:54, Philip Van Pelt a écrit :
> mouss schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 19:20 [+0100]:
>> Le 29/12/2010 18:25, Philip Van Pelt a écrit :
>>> [snip]
>>> Dec 29 13:48:31 test-services amavis[11240]: (11240-02) Passed SPAM,
>>> -> , quarantine:
>>> k/spam-kEzi169drbKm.gz, Message-ID:
>>> <
mouss schreef op wo 29-12-2010 om 19:20 [+0100]:
> Le 29/12/2010 18:25, Philip Van Pelt a écrit :
> >[snip]
> > Dec 29 13:48:31 test-services amavis[11240]: (11240-02) Passed SPAM,
> > -> , quarantine:
> > k/spam-kEzi169drbKm.gz, Message-ID:
> > <20101229124831.9def84a...@test-services.doctorvinyl
Le 29/12/2010 18:25, Philip Van Pelt a écrit :
>[snip]
> Dec 29 13:48:31 test-services amavis[11240]: (11240-02) Passed SPAM,
> -> , quarantine:
> k/spam-kEzi169drbKm.gz, Message-ID:
> <20101229124831.9def84a...@test-services.doctorvinyl.be>, mail_id:
> kEzi169drbKm, Hits: 1000.729, size: 1136, qu
Op 29/12/2010 16:13, Jeroen Geilman schreef:
On 12/29/10 2:44 PM, Philip Van Pelt wrote:
I've set up a mailserver with postfix, dovecot, amavis and spamassassin.
Everything has been up and running for a year now until I noticed my
spamfilter wasn't performing as it should; spam mails sent to a n
On 12/29/10 2:44 PM, Philip Van Pelt wrote:
I've set up a mailserver with postfix, dovecot, amavis and spamassassin.
Everything has been up and running for a year now until I noticed my
spamfilter wasn't performing as it should; spam mails sent to a normal
user were getting the right treatment an
I've set up a mailserver with postfix, dovecot, amavis and spamassassin.
Everything has been up and running for a year now until I noticed my
spamfilter wasn't performing as it should; spam mails sent to a normal
user were getting the right treatment and ended up in Spam-box, whereas
the same mail
12 matches
Mail list logo
