jdow writes:
> From: "Alexander Piavka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 23:16, Alexander Piavka took the opportunity to
> >> write:
> >> > Hi , i'd like to know if its possbile and how, to ignore specific rule
> >> > score
From: "Alexander Piavka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 23:16, Alexander Piavka took the opportunity to write:
> Hi , i'd like to know if its possbile and how, to ignore specific rule
> scores (like ALL_TRUSTED) then calculating the au
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 23:16, Alexander Piavka took the opportunity to write:
> > Hi , i'd like to know if its possbile and how, to ignore specific rule
> > scores (like ALL_TRUSTED) then calculating the autolearn threshold for
> > spam and ham?
>
>
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 23:16, Alexander Piavka took the opportunity to write:
> Hi , i'd like to know if its possbile and how, to ignore specific rule
> scores (like ALL_TRUSTED) then calculating the autolearn threshold for
> spam and ham?
"Like" ALL_TRUSTED, eh? If you have a problem with ALL_
Alexander Piavka wrote:
>
> What is the difference between the check_rbl* and check_uridnsbl*
> tests. They seem to be made for the same purpose?
They are similar, but not the same.
check_rbl is for checking MTA IP addresses found in the mail headers.
check_uridnsbl is for checking URLs found
Alexander Piavka wrote:
What is the difference between the check_rbl* and check_uridnsbl* tests.
They seem to be made for the same purpose?
check_rbl* tests look at the IP addresses of the systems that sent the
mail -- basically, what shows up in the Received: lines once they get
out of your
What is the difference between the check_rbl* and check_uridnsbl* tests.
They seem to be made for the same purpose?
Thanks.
