On 12/26, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > score __RCVD_IN_DNSWL 0
>
> It is a non-scoring "double underscore" sub-rule. It does not have a
> score. It cannot have a score. Setting its score to zero does nothing,
> and certainly not prevent the DNS query.
>
> Instead, you need to meta out the rule,
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:39:45PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > score __RCVD_IN_DNSWL 0
>
> It is a non-scoring "double underscore" sub-rule. It does not have a
> score. It cannot have a score. Setting its score to zero does nothing,
> and certainly not prevent the DNS query.
Surprise, i
> score __RCVD_IN_DNSWL 0
It is a non-scoring "double underscore" sub-rule. It does not have a
score. It cannot have a score. Setting its score to zero does nothing,
and certainly not prevent the DNS query.
Instead, you need to meta out the rule, overwriting the rule definition.
And frankly, dis
The dnswl.org rules were re-enabled on 2011-12-19, and probably distributed
via sa-update on 2011-12-20 (Tuesday). Because dnswl.org stopped causing
false negatives in response to extreme abuse.
A new rule was added to catch return values indicating you've been blocked
for abuse: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_B
