http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5476
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-15 04:32 ------- hey Tom, just getting around to this. :( (In reply to comment #3) > Also, it seems that in our case, the scoring may have to be additive. > Currently an IP address that meets our COI standards is published in > both zones, the plus.bondedsender.org zone for COI IP addresses, and the > query.bondedsender.org zone for all qualifying member IP addresses. The > query.bondedsender.org zone is the same as the two you query, sa-trusted > and sa-other.bondedsender.org. > > So would it be proper to simply add an additional -3.7 for a positive on > plus.bondedsender.org to the -4.3 default on a positive > sa-trusted.bondedsender.org check? ok, that works, and makes sense. > Not sure what you want to do on the sa-other if that IP is a COI IP or not. Best to ignore it entirely, and make the COI lookup similar to BSP_TRUSTED; it only applies to the external-to-internal "firsttrusted" handover. (Any Received headers after that point are trivially forged, which is why BSP_OTHER has such a miniscule score; it's purely informational.) > > I'm not 100% sure about changing the names of the existing rules to > > RCVD_IN_SSC_* though, since people may have local customisations (score > > changes > > etc.) hmm. > > Good point. It is actually the same reason we've not changed the zone > names on our side. I suppose there is no precedent in SA then for > renaming a rule? There is, but it's exceptionally painful, esp for users, so we avoid it if at all possible. Changing rule description strings, on the other hand, is easy. More questions: - are there test IP addresses in plus.bondedsender.org.? I can't seem to find any. - also, is there tech documentation on that zone (query using TXT/A lookups, result formats, etc.)? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
