On 06/03/2018 14:18, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2018-03-04 05:46, David Jones wrote:
>
>> That's great. It means you know what you are doing when you change the
>> default threshold to less than 5.0. In that case you need to change a lot
>> of other scores down too including RCVD_IN_IADB_* and
On 06/03/2018 04:42, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
> I would argue that the current scores work very well for default installs.
My experience shows otherwise
>> That would be acceptable :)
>
> I disagree. Knee-jerk changes to rule scores based on a single report that
> contradicts what others are
On 04/03/2018 22:46, David Jones wrote:
>> Some us have very fine tuned SA's, and use less than 5.0 which was
>> acceptable 10 years ago, but not in recent times, so a few .1's can mean
>> user gets spam, V user doesnt get spam - I know what I prefer.
>
> That's great. It means you know what
On 2018-03-04 05:46, David Jones wrote:
That's great. It means you know what you are doing when you change the
default threshold to less than 5.0. In that case you need to change a
lot of other scores down too including RCVD_IN_IADB_* and the KAM.cf
rules probably score way too high for you
On 3 Mar 2018, at 3:54, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84
On 03/03/2018 06:26 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 23:45, David Jones wrote:
On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 03/03/2018 23:45, David Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote: On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
> -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS
On 03/03/2018 05:54 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
On 03/03/2018 11:40, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
> -0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
> [199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
>
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes
On 03/03/2018 04:40, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote: On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones
> wrote: On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote: I know I have brought
> up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having
> 7 different rules
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems
On 2 Mar 2018, at 0:48, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
But why does SA have to expose a rule for each and every code IADB
provides?
So that users can implement their own policies if desired? So that
different rules can have a more granular effect on the inbound email
flow, without this being a
On 03/02/2018 02:54 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry
for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for
the IADB whitelist still
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the
IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
On 01/03/18 19:04, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the
IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
On 1 Mar 2018, at 10:29, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the
IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
(Disclaimer, I have inner visibility
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB:
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
>
>> I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
>> persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
>> whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
>>
>> -0.2
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
21 matches
Mail list logo
