https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7067
Kris Deugau <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from Kris Deugau <[email protected]> --- (In reply to AXB from comment #4) > why is this a FP? > > score TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS_HTML 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 > score TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY 0.001 1.308 0.001 1.308 > > the rules do what they're designed for. As of when the message was originally processed (Jul 8), and as of the rules update from ~Friday or so: 72_scores.cf:score TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS_HTML 0.001 2.620 0.001 2.620 72_scores.cf:score TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY 0.001 2.499 0.001 2.499 > Your sample clearly shows this and if anything, the senders should fix their > sloppy msg generation as well do the right thing and get fcrdns I don't have time to bully thousands of small senders like this into fixing formal RFC-correctness things like this (no < > on the To: address). Apparently they don't send notices to GMail or AOL accounts or they would probably have proper rDNS already. I *have* actually tried contacting people about issues like this in the past, and gotten one of: 1) No response, no change. (No surprise.) 2) "uhhhh.... whut?" Usually because the only point of contact I can find is the hosting customer whose site the widget is on... and they are NOT systems/server folks, so they don't have a clue what needs fixing. > If this msg was tagged as spam, then there were more rules involved or the > threshold has been heavily modified I probably should have included the full hit report originally. I don't run with a modified threshold systemwide; just a few on a per-user basis. (To be exact, 5 with a threshold under 5; one at 5.5 due to.... yep, rules like this causing otherwise legitimate - and unwhitelistable - website form mail to get tagged; 5 domain accounts at 7; a legacy hosting role contact at 7.5; and 5 more with a threshold of 8 which at one point or another had FP issues.) Content analysis details: (5.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts -1.5 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0493] 1.0 BROKEN_TEXT_1 RAW: 20+ short lines 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS 2.6 TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY To: misformatted and HTML only 2.0 TO_NO_BRKTS_NORDNS_HTML To: misformatted and no rDNS and HTML only No custom rules hit, no modified scores except for Bayes (as of original processing), not even a funky Bayes hit. I notice that if it had hit BAYES_00 instead, and I had not modified the BAYES_* scores, it *still* would have been tagged - the stock BAYES_00 score is currently -1.9; I have it at -3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
