KC == Kelsey Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
KC On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:48:44AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
[[..]]
Follow-ups have already raised issues such as What if an ISP brings a new
mail server on line?
KC Then if used in a scoring system, you'll get some number of points,
Danita Zanre wrote:
Of course the real solution to this one is to get Spamcop to back off
on this particular listing. I find it outrageous myself. Even in the US
it's not always possible to get a fixed IP address in some locations for
small businesses and outside the US it's often simply not
You can use a meta rule to look for a combination of rules returning true.
Using this with either custom rules or the existing rules may do what you
are looking for.
I'm not positive on the exact syntax, both something like this might work.
metaMY_MULTI_RBL RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
Danita Zanre Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:56 AM
I'd like a way to offset if they are hit by both rules.
Unless I lower the point values quite dramatically, many of these emails
are being blocked by virtue of the compounded scores and other sundry
hits. Being a simple soul, I need
-Original Message-
From: Danita Zanre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Offsetting rules?
I believe this is possible, but I have no idea how. It has recently
come to our attention that Spamcop is doing
It's from all over - I actually have an anti-spam service for my
clients, and so the potential is that it is multiple sites a day that
could be affected.
Of course the real solution to this one is to get Spamcop to back off
on this particular listing. I find it outrageous myself. Even in the US
Found in a Nov. 1 posting to the SpamCop discussion list:
SpamCop now implements pre-emptive blocking of hosts. This is based on
non-SUBE points (mail volume) alone, and is not related to complaints. If
a host has no mail volume within the past 7 days except for a 1 day or
less period where
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:48:44AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
Found in a Nov. 1 posting to the SpamCop discussion list:
SpamCop now implements pre-emptive blocking of hosts. This is based on
non-SUBE points (mail volume) alone, and is not related to complaints. If
a host has no mail
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:48:44AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
Found in a Nov. 1 posting to the SpamCop discussion list:
SpamCop now implements pre-emptive blocking of hosts. This is based on
non-SUBE points (mail volume) alone, and is not related to complaints. If
a host has no mail
