On 1/6/2010 3:43 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Matt Kettler <mkettler...@verizon.net
> <mailto:mkettler...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> On 1/5/2010 8:03 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
>> Previously I was running SpamAssassin-3.1.8_1 on FreeBSD.
>>
>> I recently upgraded to 3.2.5_4.
>>
>> It's seems now, I never get any hits on the rule ALL_TRUSTED.
>>
>> Previously it seemed like SA was doing some kind of dynamic
>> evaluation which was working well.
>>
>> - Julian
>>
> is NO_RELAYS or UNPARSEABLE_RELAY also hitting?
>
> In older versions of SA, ALL_TRUSTED was really implemented as "no
> untrusted", so it would fire off if there were no relays, or no
> parseable ones. This caused problems with ALL_TRUSTED matching
> spam when people ran SA on servers with malformed headers.
>
> Later we changed it to fire if there is:
> -at least one trusted relay
> -no untrusted relays
> -no unparseable relays.
>
> Which might be the cause of your problem.
>
>
> NO_RELAYS gets no hits but UNPARSEABLE_RELAY is working.
>
> Should I be getting some hits on NO_RELAYS?
>
> Thanks for the further explanation.
>
> - Julian
>
Neither of these rules should *EVER* fire. They both indicate error
conditions.
