http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3417
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-25 23:59 ------- >On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:18:29AM -0700, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hmmm, where can I read abount SPF? >http://spf.pobox.com/ Thanx. It takes some years before this technoglogy became in masses. My rule works now. >> I think, DNS requests will be cached effectivly... >That's not my issue. "MX" is meant to specify who receives mail for >given domain/host/etc. It's now suggested to overload MX to also mean >who can send mail for give domain/host/etc. Yes. Like many other rules - RCVD_IN_* , DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM >Also, if I have several machines, all of which are allowed to send >mail for my domain, I have to add more 1 record per-domain. Not only >is that asking for errors, it's also making the DNS response larger -- >which could mean that it'll have to go TCP instead of UDP, which has a >huge impact on DNS performance. With SPF, I only need to add 1 record >which allows them all. SPF rules is less effective now, then my rule NO_MX_FOR_FROM. It shold be only one criteria to reject or commit new rules - Effectifly of Rule. >> >> About 98% of spam flag on this test >> >> About 50% of ham flag off this test >> >> No! It rule like AWL, like good whitelist - it very effective, may be we >> >shold >> revert flag and assign score<0 (-1.6 for example) >I must be missing something... If the rule hits on 98% of spam, but >also 50% of ham, the rule sucks. It'll have an S/O ratio of somewhere >in the 0.6-0.7 range (assuming equal amounts of ham/spam). According your logic AWL is very sucks. AWL create scores for example between -4 and +2 with parameters auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 1 auto_learn_threshold_spam 13.0 reshold_spam 13.0 it is equivalent to rewritten AWL (+4 to all) AWL will create scores between 0 and +6 with parameters auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 5 auto_learn_threshold_spam 18.0 required_hits 11 AWL generate +4 for many many hams. This rule sucks! It is your logic. Why are use AWL? Why AWL implemented in SA? AWL sucks more than my rule. >> I think this rule will be in top20 best rules. >This isn't an anti-spam rule, it's an anti-joejobbing rule, so it's not >going to be in the top 20 anti-spam rules. Check it! >For instance, this rule would allow "bugzilla.spamassassin.org" to >send mail as "kluge.net" (it's a backup MX for my domain), whereas I >would consider that a forgery since it's not an outgoing mail server >for my domain. With SPF I can clearly specify who I allow sending mail >using my domain. The reverse is also true (kluge.net would be allowed >to send as bugzilla.spamassassin.org...) My rule NO_MX_FOR_FROM works not because new internet draft. NO_MX_FOR_FROM works and effective _now_ because originaly most email senders use only one email account and this account exist on server with MX records and they send emails though this server. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
