https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735
--- Comment #20 from John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> ---
(In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #19)
> Example: BITCOIN_SPAM_05 will not run in daily masschecks, because
> __SPOOFED_FREEMAIL -> __NOT_SPOOFED depends on DKIM/SPF checks, which
> obviously don't run with local checks only.
That's in there solely as a FP avoidance. In that use case it's reasonable to
run the rule assuming __SPOOFED_FREEMAIL = 0. I don't think that would be a
valid assumption in all cases, though.
> Solutions?
>
> - Ignore ifplugin SPF/DKIM without network checks ? Requires hardcoding, not
> nice
> - "if (local_tests_only)" in .cf ?
That would be preferable, because then you could do something like:
ifplugin SPF/DKIM && !local_tests_only
{actual __SPOOFED_FREEMAIL definition}
else
meta __SPOOFED_FREEMAIL 0
endif
> - New rule __LOCAL_TESTS_ONLY which can help due to false/true
> meta-evaluation ?
> - Don't run BITCOIN_SPAM_05 in daily, since it doesn't tell the whole truth ?
Is that in there to include what we're currently doing? Or is it not inheriting
tflags net and thus it is running with the assumption I stated above?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
