You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@issues.apache.org on 2011/04/03 04:23:14 UTC
[Bug 6568] New: Evaluate Spamhaus Whitelist
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6568
Summary: Evaluate Spamhaus Whitelist
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Rules (Eval Tests)
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: Darxus@ChaosReigns.com
CC: Darxus@ChaosReigns.com
http://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/en/usage.html
I've been using these since December 2010. Very low hit rate. 2 out of 935
hams in March. 1/824 in February. 0/733 in January. No spam hits in my false
negatives, although I was deleting everything flagged as spam.
Listed IPs (2 were from emails from the same person):
173.10.94.185 RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV
209.191.158.252 RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS_TEMP
204.89.241.253 RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV
"senders vetted to the Spamhaus Whitelist are extremely unlikely to transmit
spam, there is no reason to put any type of spam filter either in front of or
after the whitelist"
So I guess they're saying these should all have a very large negative score.
Although later it says this is only valid with a DKIM signature. So maybe
small scores with these rules alone, and large negative scores if these hit in
combination with passing DKIM.
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval
header __RCVD_IN_SWL eval:check_rbl('swl-firsttrusted', 'swl.spamhaus.org.')
tflags __RCVD_IN_SWL nice net
header RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV eval:check_rbl_sub('swl-firsttrusted', '127.0.2.2')
describe RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV Sender listed at http://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/,
individual
tflags RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV nice net
header RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS eval:check_rbl_sub('swl-firsttrusted', '127.0.2.3')
describe RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS Sender listed at http://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/,
transactional
tflags RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS nice net
header RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV_TEMP eval:check_rbl_sub('swl-firsttrusted',
'127.0.2.102')
describe RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV_TEMP Sender listed at
http://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/, individual temporary
tflags RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV_TEMP nice net
header RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS_TEMP eval:check_rbl_sub('swl-firsttrusted',
'127.0.2.103')
describe RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS_TEMP Sender listed at
http://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/, transactional temporary
tflags RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS_TEMP nice net
score RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV 0 -2.3 0 -2.3
score RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS 0 -5 0 -5
score RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV_TEMP 0 -0.1 0 -0.1
score RCVD_IN_SWL_TRANS_TEMP 0 -0.1 0 -0.1
endif
Maybe it would be better to do them all as a single rule, since the hit rate is
so low:
header RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV eval:check_rbl('swl-firsttrusted',
'^127\.0\.2\.(?:10)?[23]$')
describe RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV Sender listed at http://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/
tflags RCVD_IN_SWL_INDIV nice net
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6568] Evaluate Spamhaus Whitelist
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6568
Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4.0 |3.4.1
--- Comment #3 from Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> 2011-10-28 17:24:42 UTC ---
I've now gotten hits on a total of 3 sites, one of which is Amazon, so a few
more hits, but I think still not enough to even put in a sandbox. Still no
hits on spam. Re-targeting to 3.4.1.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6568] Evaluate Spamhaus Whitelist
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6568
Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> 2011-05-31 23:18:09 UTC ---
Closing, because I don't think the hit rate is high enough to even put in a
sandbox. Shame.
I emailed them about it and never got a reply:
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:42:45 -0400
From: darxus@chaosreigns.com
To: info-mmv@spamhauswhitelist.com
Subject: Adding to SpamAssassin, extreemly low hit rate
I was going to add this whitelist to SpamAssassin, but the hit rate on my
personal email seems too low to justify the additional DNS query, only 5
hits since December.
Is such a low hit rate expected? Do you expect that to change?
Discussion of adding to SpamAssassin:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6568
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6568] Evaluate Spamhaus Whitelist
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6568
Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |hege@hege.li
Resolution|WONTFIX |
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.4.0
--- Comment #2 from Henrik Krohns <he...@hege.li> 2011-06-01 04:50:51 UTC ---
Darxus, you have missed the main point.
https://www.spamhauswhitelist.com/en/inviteinfo.html
It's pretty clear there won't be that many hits this year.
I would retarget this to 3.4.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.