[SOLVED] Re: At wit's end - SA is *still* tagging list traffic!

[Thomas Cameron <th...@camerontech.com>]

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:32 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> All -
> 
> I have added these to my local.cf:
> 
> whitelist_from_rcvd *@apache.org
> 
> But I am still seeing list traffic with spam samples being tagged.  Can
> someone please tell me what on Earth I need to do to tell SA to ignore
> anything on this list?  Procmail rules are not an option - I use SA on a
> relay server which uses a milter.
> 
> Thanks
> Thomas

I was whitelisting apache.org instead of spamassassin.apache.org.  I
assumed (bad, I know) that child domains would be covered by
whitelisting the parent domain.

Now my local.cf setting is:

whitelist_from_rcvd *@spamassassin.apache.org

Thanks to all who helped.

Thomas

Re: [SOLVED] Re: At wit's end - SA is *still* tagging list traffic!

[Bill Landry <bi...@pointshare.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Cameron" <th...@camerontech.com>

> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:32 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>> All -
>>
>> I have added these to my local.cf:
>>
>> whitelist_from_rcvd *@apache.org
>>
>> But I am still seeing list traffic with spam samples being tagged.  Can
>> someone please tell me what on Earth I need to do to tell SA to ignore
>> anything on this list?  Procmail rules are not an option - I use SA on a
>> relay server which uses a milter.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Thomas
>
> I was whitelisting apache.org instead of spamassassin.apache.org.  I
> assumed (bad, I know) that child domains would be covered by
> whitelisting the parent domain.
>
> Now my local.cf setting is:
>
> whitelist_from_rcvd *@spamassassin.apache.org

You still need the RDNS entry at this end of this line if you want it to 
work properly.

Bill 

Re: [SOLVED] Re: At wit's end - SA is *still* tagging list traffic!

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> Now my local.cf setting is:
>
> whitelist_from_rcvd *@spamassassin.apache.org

You still have it wrong.  That is the syntax for whitelist_from.
Whitelist_from_rcvd takes TWO arguments, not one.  That line as you have it
will be ignored.

        Loren