On 25 Feb 2018, at 11:13 (-0500), Peter Thomassen wrote:
Reminder: My question was not "how to run DNS efficiently" or "how
does
SpamAssassin run DNS queries", my question was "how can I influence
the
order of tests".
The canonical answer is: by adjusting rule priority values and using the
On 02/25/2018 05:13 PM, Peter Thomassen wrote:
Reminder: My question was not "how to run DNS efficiently" or "how does
SpamAssassin run DNS queries", my question was "how can I influence the
order of tests".
You will have to hack the priorities in the plugins & rules.
This is definitely not
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 16:10:01 +0100
Peter Thomassen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While being very satisfied, I noticed that some DNS tests often cannot
> be conducted because of rate limits, e.g. by URIBL.
This is usually the result of not running a proper recursive local dns
server. If you are using an
Hi Harald,
On 02/25/2018 05:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> 1.) If only tests that are known to have positive weight are postponed,
>> no issue can occur. Furthermore, the situation I was referring to is
>> where the score is way beyond the threshold; that is, it is a _lot_ over
>> the threshold.
Hi Harald,
On 02/25/2018 04:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> While being very satisfied, I noticed that some DNS tests often cannot
>> be conducted because of rate limits, e.g. by URIBL. At the same time,
>> running these tests often will not change the outcome of other tests, if
>> the score is
Hi,
While being very satisfied, I noticed that some DNS tests often cannot
be conducted because of rate limits, e.g. by URIBL. At the same time,
running these tests often will not change the outcome of other tests, if
the score is already way beyond the threshold.
One solution would be to
