On 02/26/2016 08:10 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Axb wrote:
On 02/26/2016 07:07 PM, RW wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:14:53 +0100
Axb wrote:
> On 02/26/2016 06:04 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > > > score VERY_LONG_REPTO_SHORT_MSG 3.999 3.999
3.999 3.999
> > > header __VERY_LONG_REPTO Reply-To
> > > =~ /[^\s\@]{20,}\@/
> > > > > > Reply-To: malgorzata.warmin...@oranet.pl
> > > > > > very long?
> > > 20 chars?
> > > 4 points?
> > > seriously?
> > > > > > that needs to be lower scored or 20 raised to much
higher values
> > > > OK, set to 25 and limit 3.5
> > > > This rule is definitely bad.
> A lot of euro languages have domains with a ton of chars.
> imo, a lame excuse of a rule.
It's actually the local-part rather than the domain.
I notice that lots of companies use reply-to addresses with
very long identifiers - e.g. my credit card company and ISP both use
the form:
support-7d83jt8tjd746h49tg9hk5d8jgf87f@...
oops - missed the right side... then it's even worse...
sorry... no matter if left or right of the @, I still think it's lame...
OK, scored rule disabled.
I don't understand how it got that score with this kind of hit rate
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20160225-r1732263-n/VERY_LONG_REPTO_SHORT_MSG/detail
seems scary that a S/O of 1 coming from such a small sample set can push
the score so high...
