Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke-users Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1

> > Anthony Ercolano wrote: >> Well I think I might have my own answer to my question. >> >> It *appears* as though the messages that weren't getting graylisted were >> sent using tls. >> > > Very interesting. Upon what are you basing this observation? > After turning log level up to debug (

Re: [spamdyke-users] graylisting - Recipient address not added to domain directory ...

t...@uncon.org wrote: > Quoting Eric Shubert : > >> Anthony Ercolano wrote: >>> Well I think I might have my own answer to my question. >>> >>> It *appears* as though the messages that weren't getting graylisted were >>> sent using tls. >>> >> Very interesting. Upon what are you basing this observ

Re: [spamdyke-users] graylisting - Recipient address not added to domain directory ...

Quoting Eric Shubert : > Anthony Ercolano wrote: >> Well I think I might have my own answer to my question. >> >> It *appears* as though the messages that weren't getting graylisted were >> sent using tls. >> > > Very interesting. Upon what are you basing this observation? > It depends upon where

Re: [spamdyke-users] graylisting - Recipient address not added to domain directory ...

Anthony Ercolano wrote: > Well I think I might have my own answer to my question. > > It *appears* as though the messages that weren't getting graylisted were > sent using tls. > Very interesting. Upon what are you basing this observation? I notice that with the 4.1 release, there is an indica