On Nov 07, Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The SpamAssassin scores are carefully optimized -- I won't change any > scores from upstream. What seems more likely is that your Yes, I am arguing that the scores for these two tests are too much aggressive. The message was rejected (even after a -2.3 bonus score!) *only* because it had a generic-looking rDNS hostname also used in the HELO[1]:
> Received: from dsl-217-155-153-11.zen.co.uk (dsl-217-155-153-11.zen.co.uk > [217.155.153.11]) This may not have been the wisest choice by the administrator considering the circumstances, but I think it's hard to argue that people should use an HELO string different from the rDNS... If after this you still believe that a 7.7 score is correct then please say so, at least he (who I Cc'ed) will know why in the future all his mail will be rejected by spamassassin. :-) > "trusted_networks" and/or "internal_networks" settings are not set > correctly (the "guessing" algorithm isn't perfect). Can you please set Not relevant in my case, the message was sent by that host (static IP, even with an inetnum record for the customer) directly to my MX. [1] You can skip the lecture about drones doing this too, I am aware of it. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
