You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> on 2020/02/01 16:38:52 UTC
Re: __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX false positive
>On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:37:47 -0800 (PST)
>John Hardin wrote:
>> That a given rule hits on some ham does not make the rule a FP. This
>> rule is working as designed.
On 31.01.20 15:09, RW wrote:
>DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX is defined in 72_active.cf, but its score is in
>50_scores.cf, set 10 years ago. Is that supposed to happen?
if by "that" you mean DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX hitting, it's common in companies
without authentication and with single mailserver.
...and, of course, where someone removes or does not add Received: headers.
problem could be lowered by adding that server to trusted_networks although
I'm not sure whether that kind of servers should be added there...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Re: __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX false positive
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 17:38:52 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:37:47 -0800 (PST)
> >John Hardin wrote:
> >> That a given rule hits on some ham does not make the rule a FP.
> >> This rule is working as designed.
>
> On 31.01.20 15:09, RW wrote:
> >DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX is defined in 72_active.cf, but its score is in
> >50_scores.cf, set 10 years ago. Is that supposed to happen?
>
> if by "that" you mean DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX hitting,
No, I meant a rule that's defined in 72_active.cf not having a
modern generated score in 72_scores.cf.