From: "Peter Bowyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OK Not wanting to start a RFC war!!!!
> >
> >
> > Why is SA nailing the email on the numeric IP is this a ATT.net
> > problem or is this a problem is with in my domain of control?
>
> Your call. The appearance of a bare IP address in a HELO back up the chain
> is very spammy; it's my experience that a properly-formed IP literal (such
> as you're seeing) is not. You're seeing multiple IP literals in successive
> hops, which is unusual. I don't use SA 3.0 so I don't know the source and
> nature of the RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE, and RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO
> you're using, but you could probably reduce their scores without much bad
> impact.
This bemused cyberunit wonders why the score under 3.0-pre2 is so much
higher than under 2.63 stock. RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO is only "1.271 0.326
1.526 1.502". I'd expect 3.0-pre2 would be about the same. So where DID
that 3.5 score come from? Did the fellow reassign it in his local.cf?
(And if so, why is he bugging the list with it?)
{^_^}
