FWIW, it's hard to tell what's going on without *all* the Received
headers. It should be fine, assuming the received hdrs are normal
(apart from the HTTP vs SMTP difference). Here's what 2.60cvs doc
says about using check_rbl:
=item Selecting all IPs except for the originating one
This is a
Justin Mason wrote:
FWIW, it's hard to tell what's going on without *all* the Received
headers. It should be fine, assuming the received hdrs are normal
(apart from the HTTP vs SMTP difference). Here's what 2.60cvs doc
says about using check_rbl:
=item Selecting all IPs except for the origina
Tony Earnshaw writes:
> David B Funk wrote:
>
> > OK, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough about the environment. The AOL client
> > was using a web browser (HTTP not SMTP) to sent the message, via a
> > webmail (HTTP-2-IMAP/SMTP) gateway (running 'IMP'). I understand about
> > requiring dial-up clien
David B Funk wrote:
OK, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough about the environment. The AOL client
was using a web browser (HTTP not SMTP) to sent the message, via a
webmail (HTTP-2-IMAP/SMTP) gateway (running 'IMP'). I understand about
requiring dial-up clients using their ISP for SMTP transactions, b
At 15:29 17/07/03 -0500, David B Funk wrote:
If you look closely at the headers, you'll see that the first
'Received:' header is tagged as using HTTP (not SMTP) protocol.
Received: from localhost (webmail2-maint.its.uiowa.edu [128.255.56.154])
by day.its.uiowa.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/ns-mx
David B Funk writes:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> David B Funk wrote:
>>
>> > For example, in the attached message the source was an AOL
>> > dialup "AC826956.ipt.aol.com [172.130.105.86]" which hit
>> > 6 RBLs ;() (with 'dnsbl.njabl.org' being added TWICE).
>>
>> You don't seem
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> David B Funk wrote:
>
> > For example, in the attached message the source was an AOL
> > dialup "AC826956.ipt.aol.com [172.130.105.86]" which hit
> > 6 RBLs ;() (with 'dnsbl.njabl.org' being added TWICE).
>
> You don't seem to be studying what is reporte
David B Funk wrote:
After installing 2.60-cvs I've noticed a number of FPs resulting
from SA misinterpreting dial-up RBL data.
In particular, it does not seem to recognise the source IP address
as the originator of the message and so considers all the dial-up RBL
scores that it hits as a spam indi
After installing 2.60-cvs I've noticed a number of FPs resulting
from SA misinterpreting dial-up RBL data.
In particular, it does not seem to recognise the source IP address
as the originator of the message and so considers all the dial-up RBL
scores that it hits as a spam indication.
For example
