blacklists and archiving

[Scott Silva]

Hugo van der Kooij spake the following on 4/24/2007 12:32 PM:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, David Vosburgh wrote:
> 
>> Dave Shariff Yadallee - System Administrator a.k.a. The Root of the
>> Problem wrote:
>>>  This came up in my Spamcheck headers vosburgh at dalsemi.com
>>>
>>>  spam,
>>>          SpamAssassin (not cached, score=5, required 5,
>>>          RCVD_IN_WHOIS_BOGONS 5.00)
>>>
>>>  Hoe this helps.
>>>
>> Thanks for the heads-up.  Never heard of that RBL, but they have my
>> attention now :-).
> 
> But they are overrated in this case. What does anyone care how I number
> my network inside? So why attach 5 points just because someone happens
> to use an internal network number on his internal network?
> 
> I also do documentation and 192.0.2 does not overlap with any other
> network so far so my VPN's are clean as well.
> 
> Hugo.
> 
That rule shouldn't be firing unless a bogon address is the last relay. It is
perfectly valid to have a bogon address for your internal network, in fact it
is probably encouraged.

I see some traffic on this mis-firing since spamassassin 3.1.3 came out on the
spamassassin list, and I think there is an oldish bug report on it.

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!