On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 07:41:50 -0500
David Jones wrote:

> On 04/07/2018 10:42 AM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:

> > I've enclosed one of the messages received here:
> > 
> > https://pastebin.com/9Bmu3pj1  
> I added this to the 60_whitelist_auth.cf to trust this sender:
> def_whitelist_auth *@*.tpr.gov.uk
> This will get pushed out in a couple of days by sa-update.
> I know it's not directly addressing your question about the rule's
> high score 

FWIW with the defaults it would have scored only 1.04. Even with
BAYES_50 instead of BAYES_00 or without RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, it's still
comfortably under threshold.  

That said, perhaps someone could see how this compares with the existing


It excludes cases where the RHS has a long decimal number or hex
string. The 14 could be increased if the spam hits drop significantly. 

I don't have any hits on MSGID_SPAM_CAPS, but my guess is that
doing "clever" things with message-ids is indicative of ham, and most
spam hits will have something simpler.

Reply via email to