On 9/13/2014 11:05 AM, Axb wrote:
John
your rule RPATH_NULL_CTCQ _NULL also hits on very large part of my
corpus because a bunch of my spam feeds send with an empty envelope
sender to prevent possible bounces
see
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20140913-r1624715-n/RPATH_NULL_CTCQ/detail
imo this rule should removed..
Alex
Alex, your system is breaking the RFC I think:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
From 4.5.5:
All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required
by a standards-track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent
with with a valid, non-null reverse-path.
Implementors of automated email processors should be careful to make
sure that the various kinds of messages with null reverse-path are
handled correctly, in particular such systems SHOULD NOT reply to
messages with null reverse-path.
My worry is that John's rule is accurate in a real-world anti-spam scenario and
yours is an edge case.
regards,
KAM
