Re: URIBLFP? [Was: SA or Commercial AntiSpam products]

[Mi...@asf.osuosl.org, "N...@asf.osuosl.org, Blacknight <mi...@blacknight.ie>]

mouss wrote:
> (top posting because not a reply:)
> 
> this message triggers:
> URIBL_BLACK (nease DOT net. found in the message footer)
> MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY
> RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY (because of X-Originating-IP: [218.19.159.186])
> 
> and also
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
> DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
> MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER
> 
> is the uribl listing justified or is it too "aggressive"?
> 

If you don't approve of a URIBL listing in URIBL_BLACK you could always
ask the maintainers to move it to GREY ...


-- 
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Quality Business Hosting & Colocation
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. 1850 927 280
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 59  9164239

Re: URIBLFP? [Was: SA or Commercial AntiSpam products]

[mouss <us...@free.fr>]

Michele@netoyen.net a écrit :
> 

From: Michele@netoyen.net,
	"Neylon:"@netoyen.net:Blacknight <mi...@blacknight.ie>

ahuh? Can you please send you me (offline) your From address (in the
body of a message so it's not rewritten). seems like it triggers a bogus
postfix rewrite.

> If you don't approve of a URIBL listing in URIBL_BLACK you could always
> ask the maintainers to move it to GREY ...
> 

my question was open. I have no idea whether the domain in question is
good or bad, except that one SA subscriber has it in his footer; which
is not enough to ask for moving the domain to grey.