https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6535
--- Comment #11 from Steve Freegard <[email protected]> 2011-01-19 17:01:43 UTC --- > It's also one of the reasons that I disagree with Barracuda's recommendation to > use "deep header parsing". It's the same thing as not using last-external > relay and we know it has FPs especially due to DHCP pools. Just wanted to make a further point here. The Barracuda saga was caused by the deep-header parsing using RBLs that stated they shouldn't be used for that purpose *and* they were doing this at SMTP time (e.g. as a boolean accept/reject). Here - we're scoring on it; and that's by design. The RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET has gone through the scoring process as a deep-header parsing test and been scored accordingly because of that. Which also gives me the idea; why don't you add a -lastexternal variant of the SpamCop lookup to your sandbox and see how it fares in the mass-checks compared to the current version. To continue Mark's point about non-parsing of a Received header as a bug; consider that the patch I provided doesn't just supply the IP address of that hop; but also the HELO used by that host (which *is* definitely useful in rules). -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
