http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4811
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-03-01 13:39 -------
Justin, I think the meta rule would work ok because it make the SPF_FAIL be
worth +100 only when there is a USER_IN_WHITELIST that provides -100. So it it
not saying "force scoring as spam whenever SPF_FAIL", which as you point out
would be subject to false positives. It is saying "force scoring as ham whenever
USER_IN_WHITELIST unless there is SPF_FAIL". That is vulnerable to phishing when
there is no SPF record, but is no worse than plain USER_IN_WHITELIST, and is
what Alex says that he wants.
The semantics of WHITELIST_FROM_SPF is "force scoring as ham whenever
USER_IN_WHITELIST and spf success". Alex wants it to be "force scoring as ham
whenever USER_IN_WHITELIST unless there is SPF_FAIL". Comment #8 shows how Alex
can use a meta rule to get what he wants, even if we do not change what
WHITELIST_FROM_SPF does.
I'm closing this once again as INVALID, for that reason. Alex, please get the
hint and don't reopen it. This rule is working the way we want it to and you
have been given a workaround to configure SpamAssassin to work the way you want
it to.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
