On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:37:24 -0500 dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> 2) Because the re-scorer thinks this rule is useful enough in blocking > spams that it's worth the occasional missed spam it causes. Would > you rather get as many spams as you do, and have them all hit > RP_MATCHES_RCVD, or not use RP_MATCHES_RCVD, and miss twice as many > spams? "Twice" is not intended to be a solid number, just an > example of how the re-scorer might be thinking. Actually for me it hits more spam than ham. RP_MATCHES_RCVD has come-up several times on this list, and I've yet to see anyone say it's working well. What's worse it is that it's hitting the kinds of spam that are hardest to catch: snowshoe and freemail. This rule is taking 2.6 points off Yahoo and AOL. There got to be something wrong there. It's like a satnav telling you to turn left at a ford.
