Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 93292 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2010 19:31:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2010 19:31:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 46578 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2010 19:31:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 46550 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2010 19:31:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 46543 invoked by uid 99); 12 Mar 2010 19:31:10 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:31:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:31:03 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NqAZH-000133-9x for users@spamassassin.apache.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:30:43 -0800 Message-ID: <27881823.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:30:43 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff_47 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: RBLs not run when dns_available=yes? In-Reply-To: <20100312192801.361363pm321vt90c@webmail.yournetplus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: python@finity.org References: <27881526.post@talk.nabble.com> <20100312192801.361363pm321vt90c@webmail.yournetplus.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org d.hill wrote: > >>Quoting Jeff_47: > >>> >>> I have an odd situation - it seems like I must be missing something but >>> I >>> don't know what. >>> >>> In my local.cf, I had the following lines: >>> dns_available yes >>> skip_rbl_checks 0 >>> >>> I noticed that no RBL checks were being run. >>> >>> If I change dns_available to "test" or comment out the line (same >>> function), >>> now the RBL checks are run as expected. >> >>In SA v3.3.0: >> >>Commenting out the line results in using the default setting. The >>default setting for 'dns_available' is 'test'. Perhaps there is a DNS >>issue on your server. > > Thanks, I understood the part about commenting it out. > > But my question is this: since 'dns_available test' results in all the > rbls being run, then doesn't that mean that the test is succeeding? In > which case, how is that different than my entering 'dns_available yes'. > > In other words, a successful test run by 'dns_available test' is not > producing the same result as 'dns_available yes' - that's where I was > surprised. > >>'skip_rbl_checks' is defaulted to '0'. You shouldn't have to include it. > > Right. When I was troubleshooting and not getting expected results, I > added it to be explicit. > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/RBLs-not-run-when-dns_available%3Dyes--tp27881526p27881823.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.