Justin Mason wrote, On 5/5/07 11:02 PM: > Well, don't forget -- RFC-compliant != nonspam. We're a spam-detection > tool, not RFC-compliance-detection, so sometimes an RFC-compliant feature > is still worth using as a rule.
Yes, I brought it up only because of the discussion about OE_MULTIPART_RELATED where you decided not to deploy it. Some RFC-compliant behavior can be a spam sign, but in this case also gets FPs that cannot be distinguished, in regards to that test, from the spam and which serves a legitimate non-spam purpose that can't be achieved in another way. > This is why we locked it's score to 1.0, after all. Ah, I wondered why the score was exactly 1.0. It's rank seemed to indicate that it would end up with a higher score. > It looks like in that bug, the rule was added into testing -- was > it removed later, after that point? OE_MULTIPART_RELATED is still in rules/70_sandbox.cf with a nopublish tag. > I'd be fine with deprecating EXTRA_MPART_TYPE and replacing it with a > better rule/rules, I think. Go for it ;) I'll look at it. I don't have a high degree of certainty that there is a non-FP'ing rule to be found there if the reality is that a bunch of spammers and a few less clueful people like to send out HTML mail with embedded images using Outlook Express. -- sidney
