On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:26:54 -0400 Alex wrote: > Hi, > > >> Are you paying for DCC? I think we're over their limit and they > >> blacklisted us long ago, lol. > > > > I have my own DCC server joined into the DCC network. > > > > https://www.dcc-servers.net/dcc/ > > So you only provide spam services for your own users? Or do you pay? > > > I am classifying about 10K ham and 8K spam each day which I also > > use in the masscheck processing (currently on hold). Since I have > > started doing this > > Through autolearn? > > It is otherwise extremely time-intensive. > > > Yep. Again my block threshold is 6.0 in MailScanner and I have > > less default trust for FREEMAIL senders. I also have meta rules > > based on FREEMAIL and other hits that add to the score based on > > combinations I have seen over the years. > > Adjusting many of the default rules disrupts the score balance created > by masschecks, no? > > I want to avoid having to juggle scores around, in addition to already > worrying about writing rules that ultimately have the same effect as > existing metas. > > >>> 2.2 ENA_DIGEST_FREEMAIL Freemail account hitting message > >>> digest spam seen by the Internet (DCC, Pyzor, or Razor). > > Are you worried about overlap between the checksum systems? > > I've enabled DCC again today, and remembered what I don't like about > it. Do you have DCC_CHECK at its default 1.1 score? That's quite high > for something described as "bulk mail" when bulk mail is already > scored very close to 5.0.
And with FREEMAIL_FROM plus DCC_CHECK (or any digest) you have 1.2 FREEMAIL_FROM 2.2 DCC_CHECK 2.2 ENA_DIGEST_FREEMAIL 0.0 ENA_BAD_SPAM which is 5.6 points. And judging by the name, at least in some cases, maybe all: 2.2 ENA_BAD_SPAM_FREEMAIL which makes 7.8 points. This is something that presumably works for him, but could cause problems in general.
