On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:59:29 +0200, Michelle Konzack <linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net> wrote:
>Hello rstarkov, > >Am 2011-04-09 15:50:36, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: >> Does your header definitely include an ESMTP marker as per the RFC? Mine >> didn't; that was the real issue. We didn't find a bug in this rule. So I >> guess SpamAssassin doesn't have a way to find out that you were >> authenticated and that it was your own message. > >Yes, look into my previous message... > >However, I find SORBS too errorprone and not very reliabel! > >Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > Michelle Konzack I'd agree that one in spades. I'm still getting stuff bounce from cached entries months after I cleared the last SORBS issue. That was the 3rd time I've had to do so and I've been on static from the get go (15 years +). My ISP didn't help overly. BT decided that all issues relating to rbl's are abuse issues and should be dealt with by that department; it might have helped if they told said department and actually trained the poor sods. Saying that, no amount of training helps with SORBS. IMVHO SORBS gives rbl's an undeserved bad name. Additionally, BT's approach of 'we are big ergo you do what we say' doesn't add much in the way of help either. After many years I'm moving off BT, though that is because of their billing and the incompetence there makes their rbl handling look like it's 6 sigma. I've defended BT for years, seems I was naive. Expect to see me in SORBS soon :-D Nigel
