Am 17.05.2016 um 03:28 schrieb Alex:
Hi, On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:15 AM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote:On Sun, 15 May 2016 20:58:41 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin wrote:On Sun, 15 May 2016, Alex wrote:Is that score really warranted? For example: Received: from host82.torus.pl (91.209.116.82) (HELO [192.168.20.7]) by sedan1.home.pl (89.161.160.215) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer v0.80.2) id 74a9561edc57ecb3; Wed, 11 May 2016 09:57:10 +0200 It appears to be triggered based on the "home" in the hostname? What was the intention of this rule? To catch mail with "home" in the HELO string?A HELO that ends with ".home", regardless of the hostname. Your example above should not have hit that rule.It only require a boundary after "home".Have we looked at some of the other FSL_ rules? Do we have any reason to believe they may also be scored to high or disproportionately tag ham? I've seen a significant number of FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 also hitting a lot of ham, and just wanted to make sure, with such a high score, it was also not FP prone...
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/150742 http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/RCVD-NUMERIC-HELO-td120003.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
