At 04:33 PM 1/20/04 +0100, Ralf Vitasek wrote:
i tested many things with the trusted users settings and googled around
but i had no luck so far.
except that i stumbled on a posting from this lists archive that makes me
think that something is broken and that it would be fixed in the upcoming
At 09:02 PM 1/19/04 +0100, Anders Sveen wrote:
I'm actually listed because it originates from a dynamic ip-range. Nothing
more. It surprises me that they lists ip's for only beeing dynamic, but
then I discovered the way RBLs are being used by mailservers and then it
actually made sense. It
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 09:02 PM 1/19/04 +0100, Anders Sveen wrote:
I'm actually listed because it originates from a dynamic ip-range.
Nothing more. It surprises me that they lists ip's for only beeing
dynamic, but then I discovered the way RBLs are being used by
mailservers and then it
Morning Ralf.
Matt has a problem that I think is specifically caused because his server is
Nated. He had to add the private network to his trusted networks list.
I don't have that problem, and Theo acknowleges that there is a bug that
should be fixed in 2.70.
I haven't heard a definite schedule
I'm actually listed because it originates from a dynamic ip-range.
Nothing more. It surprises me that they lists ip's for only beeing
dynamic, but then I discovered the way RBLs are being used by
mailservers and then it actually made sense. It doesn't make sense the
way SA uses it. :)
I'm
At 11:22 PM 1/18/04 +0100, PieterB wrote:
What's the best practice preventing this? Changing SpamAssassin in
some way, masquerading/munging Received-headers, or something else?
1) work with the RBL to get de-listed
2) change ISPs to move your IP to a different block.
And that's about it.. The
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Matt Kettler wrote:
snip..
1) work with the RBL to get de-listed
2) change ISPs to move your IP to a different block.
And that's about it.. The fact that SA notices that a source IP is listed,
even though you use a legitimate mail relay, is NOT a bug. It's
At 08:23 PM 1/18/04 -0500, Gerry Doris wrote:
My ip is listed in SORBS for the simple reason that it is in a dynamic
block of addresses administered by my ISP. SORBS just states that I
should use my ISP mail server which I already do.
Since SORBS only adds 0.10 to the spamassassin total I'm not
DynaBlock was adding 4.00 and if I remember correctly spamassassin had a
problem where it was ignoring the fact that I was using my ISP's server.
That is a bug. SA is supposed to skip dynablock checks on the first IP..
Anyone who's copy of SA is incorrectly checking dynablock against the
You remember correctly.
I posted this bug report and Theo said a fix is pending in 2.70 - I don't
know how many messages that will cause to go missing in the meantime - not
sure how big a problem it is OR how they prioritize those things...
Personally I'm with you - I think it's a BIG problem
At 05:49 PM 1/18/04 -0800, Mitch \(WebCob\) wrote:
Problem with this fix is it only fixes things for my users locally - when my
users send mail to someone else, they would have to set the same networks as
trusted.
This is untrue..
What ALL affected admins must do is set trusted_networks to is
Your missing the case where the mail is not coming from a private network or
a nated server.
I experience this problem (as mentioned in the bug report) from roaming
users who are connecting through authenticated SMTP to their mail server,
and relaying to me. I'd have to trust all the IP pools of
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
Your missing the case where the mail is not coming from a private network or
a nated server.
I experience this problem (as mentioned in the bug report) from roaming
users who are connecting through authenticated SMTP to their mail server,
and relaying to me. I'd have to
13 matches
Mail list logo
