https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6693
--- Comment #5 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> --- Ned, Thanks for your post. Changes like this are always hard because the rule maintainer no longer volunteers with the project. So here's what I did: - Check my logs to see if I had any FPs from the rule. I did not. - Checked my corpora for FPs. I had none - Checked my corpora for mails that the rule hit but did not misclassify - I had 4. So I want to reiterate one point. Rules have scores for a reason. If the rules AS A WHOLE cause a misclassification, it's a FP. However, if a rule hits but otherwise the email isn't misclassified based on the default 5.0 score, it's not a high priority for the project and changing your local scoring is likely the best change we can recommend. However, I've added a ceiling for the auto ruleQA of 2.0. Might want to also consider contributing to masscheck! Currently testing this patch for commit: --- rulesrc/sandbox/maddoc/99_fsl_testing.cf (revision 1577613) +++ rulesrc/sandbox/maddoc/99_fsl_testing.cf (working copy) @@ -1,9 +1,13 @@ # 419 Spam header __FSL_HELO_USER_1 X-Spam-Relays-External =~ / helo=user /i -header __FSL_HELO_USER_2 Received =~ /from User(?:\s+by|\s*\(|$)/i -header __FSL_HELO_USER_3 Received =~ /helo(?:=|\s)User/i +# KAM 3/14/2014 - BUG 6693 - Terminate with ( or [ +header __FSL_HELO_USER_2 Received =~ /from User(?:\s+by|\s*[\[\(]|$)/i +# KAM 3/14/2014 - BUG 6693 - Terminated with ) and added EHLO OR HELO matching +header __FSL_HELO_USER_3 Received =~ /(?:eh|he)lo(?:=|\s)User\)/i meta FSL_NEW_HELO_USER (__FSL_HELO_USER_1 || __FSL_HELO_USER_2 || __FSL_HELO_USER_3) -# score FSL_NEW_HELO_USER 2.0 +describe FSL_NEW_HELO_USER Spam's using Helo and User +score FSL_NEW_HELO_USER 2.0 +tflags FSL_NEW_HELO_USER publish Sorry this took so long! We need better ways for rules contribution and updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
