-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gary Funck writes: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 9:12 PM > > > > "Gary Funck" writes: > > > > > >This is a follow-up to the following note. Basically, I'm trying to build > > >a patch to 2.63 to fix this problem, and I've got the > > Received.pm part done > > >perhaps, but am (more) unsure about the Evaltest.pm part. > > > > Gary -- > > > > I think http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2744 will do > > the trick. The patch should still apply to 2.6x. > > > > > > Juatin, thanks. Looks good, and the background info. was helpful. Now that > I see that a new 'internal_networks' directive was added, the code makes > a lot more sense. <g> > > Regarding this new internal_networks directive ... I think many of us > currently use trusted_networks as the demarcation point of our network > and thus these would qualify as internal_networks in the new scheme of > things (if I got that right), and trusted_networks will work differently > in how they process 'dial ups' and such. So, if we don't change our > trusted_networks settings to internal_networks settings, we'll have the > same current (buggy?) behavior as exists now. Is that right, or did > I miss the point? Not quite -- internal_networks is similar to what we do now. trusted_networks has the new semantics that, if a mail is sent to a (trusted) relay after a dialup IP, that won't hit dynablock. See the Conf manpage for more details. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAJ8XzQTcbUG5Y7woRAuRIAKCokekevj+ph6KSLz8izTdcxoUd1ACgsglg aVMHcwrLqNPlD2QAnxWiqnw= =Y5PM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
