On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:53:35 Marc Perkel wrote:
> If you are worried about losing good email add this rule to your ruleset:
>
> header RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W eval:check_rbl_sub('HOSTKARMA-lastexternal',
> '127.0.0.1') describe RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W Sender listed in HOSTKARMA-WHITE
> tflags RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W net nice
> score RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W -5
>
> This is a white list and it is very extensive. It will protect a lot of
> your ham while blessing very little spam. So if you are ham oriented,
> not losing good email, this is a list that will work for you.
We received 52 spam messages per day on the average in January
which got a hit on RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W. Luckily we only score
it at -0.5 . Of these 52 spam messages, 3.6 messages per day
would have been treated as ham had we used a rule score -5
and required_hits 5.
Examining messages that were blocked but whitelisted by
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W, I found four newsletters in the whole
January (not per day), each sent to avg three of our recipients,
which could potentially be worth saving. None of them were
worth rescuing from a quarantine.
In summary, score of -5 for RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W is grossly overrated.
Mark
