On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 17:08 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2018, at 16:24, Chris Pollock wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 15:14 -0600, Chris Pollock wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:00 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > > On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:37, Chris Pollock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On
On 13 Dec 2018, at 16:24, Chris Pollock wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 15:14 -0600, Chris Pollock wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:00 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:37, Chris Pollock wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>
On Thu, 2018-12-13 at 15:14 -0600, Chris Pollock wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:00 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:37, Chris Pollock wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > Anyway, as of today I've capped those 2 subrules at
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:00 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:37, Chris Pollock wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > Anyway, as of today I've capped those 2 subrules at levels which
> > > leave ample space to still match the target spam.
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 19:00 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:37, Chris Pollock wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > Anyway, as of today I've capped those 2 subrules at levels which
> > > leave ample space to still match the target spam.
On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:37, Chris Pollock wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
[...]
>> Anyway, as of today I've capped those 2 subrules at levels which
>> leave ample space to still match the target spam. Should show up in
>> tomorrow's update.
I was wrong. The addition of
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2018, at 18:23, Chris Pollock wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2018-12-09 at 13:06 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > On 9 Dec 2018, at 12:04, Chris Pollock wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is probably very trivial and doesn't affect anything
> > > > except
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Chris Pollock wrote:
It's got the potential to be VERY noisy (as you've discovered) while
not really providing much useful info. Not a big deal on a small
system.
I could just go through and comment out this line in my local.cf
add_header all Subtest Ran _SUBTESTS(,)_
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:09 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2018, at 18:23, Chris Pollock wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2018-12-09 at 13:06 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > On 9 Dec 2018, at 12:04, Chris Pollock wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is probably very trivial and doesn't affect anything
> > > > except
On 9 Dec 2018, at 18:23, Chris Pollock wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-12-09 at 13:06 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 2018, at 12:04, Chris Pollock wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably very trivial and doesn't affect anything except
>>> maybe
>>> the size of the headers but I have to ask. When looking at the
On Sun, 2018-12-09 at 13:06 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2018, at 12:04, Chris Pollock wrote:
>
> > This is probably very trivial and doesn't affect anything except
> > maybe
> > the size of the headers but I have to ask. When looking at the
> > headers
> > of some ham I noticed -
On 9 Dec 2018, at 12:04, Chris Pollock wrote:
This is probably very trivial and doesn't affect anything except maybe
the size of the headers but I have to ask. When looking at the headers
of some ham I noticed - https://pastebin.com/H7euxqVX the two rules I
mention above are in 72_active.cf. Is
This is probably very trivial and doesn't affect anything except maybe
the size of the headers but I have to ask. When looking at the headers
of some ham I noticed - https://pastebin.com/H7euxqVX the two rules I
mention above are in 72_active.cf. Is there a reason for the number of
times it's
13 matches
Mail list logo
