On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 9:47 PM Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> Did it cause a fp with a score of 5.0 or higher?
Yes.
https://pastebin.com/AqezMHjQ
Thanks!
I've dropped both the scores substantially so if it triggers as spam
there must be other noticeable nastiness.
(There's a reason we've never submitted fp's for review, Australia has
very strong privacy laws, not quite as strong as Germany, but close to
it, we have to have users submit them dir
Feel free to submit fps for review.
On Sun, May 1, 2022, 21:56 Noel Butler wrote:
> .online will be a problem for us, a quick grep of 2 mail servers shows a
> good few FPs, also doubling up seems counter productive, but add those with
> pother rules and it easily triggers limits
>
>
> On 02/05/2
.online will be a problem for us, a quick grep of 2 mail servers shows a
good few FPs, also doubling up seems counter productive, but add those
with pother rules and it easily triggers limits
On 02/05/2022 11:47, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Did it cause a fp with a score of 5.0 or higher?
On Sun
Did it cause a fp with a score of 5.0 or higher?
On Sun, May 1, 2022, 21:46 Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Four points for a .online TLD with KAM rules
>
> * 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
> * [URI: www.lci-mtc.online (online)]
>
> * 2.0 KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD .bar, .buzz, .cam, .cas
Hi,
Four points for a .online TLD with KAM rules
* 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
* [URI: www.lci-mtc.online (online)]
* 2.0 KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD .bar, .buzz, .cam, .casa, .cfd, .club,
* .date, .guru, .live, .online, .press, .pw, .quest, .rest, .sbs,
* .shop, .
