Bill: Would it not be a more general test if one could AND various test names?
So then it would be a grand logic case.. Test1 & test2 & test3 match -10 That way it can help with a broader set of conditions. Just a thought.. Kami -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion & request for comments... Scott, I didn't see any response from you about this test suggestion. I was wondering what your thoughts were on a test like this and if you might consider implementing. If not, I will consider writing an external app to run this kind of test, however, it would be much better if supported by Declude since it already has all of the necessary values to plug into such a test. If I do an external app, I would need to re-run some of the tests Declude has already run (MX and rDNS) in order to retrieve these values. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:32 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion & request for comments... > Scott, you have probably seen requests like this before, however, I think > this would be a great way to support most corporate and some ISP e-mail > domains with a negative weight based test: > > HELO & RDNS domain match -5 > HELO & RDNS & MAILFROM domain match -10 > HELO & RDNS domain match & IPINMX -10 (yes, IP-in-MX) > HELO & RDNS & MAILFROM domain match & IPINMX -15 or ENDALLTESTS > > I say "domain" meaning just the last two segments of the FQHN, that portion > that is registered with domain registrar. Since all of these tests are > already run by Declude, if a bit of logic could be added to support a test > like this, I think it could help us get a lot of legitimate mail delivered > with fewer held due to FPs. > > Also, if people feel that the last test above is a very good indicator of > legitimate e-mail, then if this test is run first (before all other tests), > and there is a match with the last test shown above, and there was variable > to ENDALLTESTS (and deliver), then this would also cut down on processing > requirements. > > Thoughts anyone...? > > Bill > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
