Hello Matt,
Monday, June 23, 2003, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MK> At 06:23 PM 6/23/03 +0400, Maxim Berlin wrote:
>>Thanks for answer, but i am still confused.
>>Two passes: sendmail input(1)->majordomo->sendmail output(2), am i
>>correct?
>>(1) should not tag message, because sender
At 06:23 PM 6/23/03 +0400, Maxim Berlin wrote:
Thanks for answer, but i am still confused.
Two passes: sendmail input(1)->majordomo->sendmail output(2), am i
correct?
(1) should not tag message, because sender is in whitelist_from.
Is it? Are you SURE that the sender that appeared in the headers pr
Hello Matt,
Monday, June 23, 2003, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MK> At 01:41 PM 6/23/03 +0400, Maxim Berlin wrote:
>>so, i've -98.1 hits, and no X-Spam-Flag: YES, but subject was
>>rewritten. Is that a bug, or i do not understand something?
MK> This kind of general behavior usually ha
At 01:41 PM 6/23/03 +0400, Maxim Berlin wrote:
so, i've -98.1 hits, and no X-Spam-Flag: YES, but subject was
rewritten. Is that a bug, or i do not understand something?
This kind of general behavior usually happens when a message gets run
through SA twice. The first run tags it, but the second one
Hello all,
today i've got message from our IIS watcher robot:
**
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: HTTP on www.rts.ru is down
Error notification
**
and this message after SA 2.55:
**
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[E
