>On 4/25/2016 7:07 PM, David Jones wrote:
>> score LOCAL__H_from_sample -10.0
>>> header LOCAL__H_from_sample ALL =~ /mail\.sample\.com/i
>> Add it's IP to your trusted_networks and subtract a few points for
>> ALL_TRUSTED. I wouldn't recommend subtracting 10 points as you
>> still want to be a
On 4/25/2016 7:07 PM, David Jones wrote:
score LOCAL__H_from_sample -10.0
header LOCAL__H_from_sample ALL =~ /mail\.sample\.com/i
Add it's IP to your trusted_networks and subtract a few points for
ALL_TRUSTED. I wouldn't recommend subtracting 10 points as you
still want to be able to block
Am 26.04.2016 um 11:23 schrieb Heinrich Boeder:
Hi,
On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
Recently seeing increase in spam from these gTLD:
pro
bid
trade
I didn´t see any spam from .pro, .bid or .trade gTLDs either. I was just
wondering if it doesn´t make more sense to just give
Hi,
On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
Recently seeing increase in spam from these gTLD:
pro
bid
trade
I didn´t see any spam from .pro, .bid or .trade gTLDs either. I was just
wondering if it doesn´t make more sense to just give those domains a
higher score in SA instead of b
-Original Message-
From: RW [mailto:rwmailli...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 25 April 2016 13:13
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: KAM error?
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:43:07 +
Richard Mealing wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm seeing this a bit on google, but I'm not quite sure of
On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Recently seeing increase in spam from these gTLD:
>
> pro
> bid
> trade
I haven’t seen .pro myself, and all the .trade and .bid attempts have hit zen
and been rejected in post screen before the DATA connection is even established.
--
Everythin
