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...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2007/10/12 19:07:47 UTC
[Bug 5682] New: FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP matches static addresses
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5682
Summary: FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP matches static addresses
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.2.3
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Rules
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: uhlar@fantomas.sk
we have many DSL customers with statically assigned IP addresses, but generic
DNS names, e.g. static-081-024-000.dsl.nextra.sk. When they are sending mail to
us, our SA gives them high score because they match FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP, which
often results to marking message as spam.
Most of them can be avoided by using SMTP authentication, but since they often
run mailserver on that IP (which is why they send mail from it), it's not always
possible.
Of course we can change their DNS names, but should FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP really
match this kind of users? It would be nice to combine FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP check
with __RDNS_STATIC the same way RDNS_DYNAMIC does.
(btw, aren't RDNS_DYNAMIC and FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP kind of redundant?)
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5682] FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP matches static addresses
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5682
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2007-10-21 10:37 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> we have many DSL customers with statically assigned IP addresses, but generic
> DNS names, e.g. static-081-024-000.dsl.nextra.sk. When they are sending mail to
> us, our SA gives them high score because they match FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP, which
> often results to marking message as spam.
>
> Most of them can be avoided by using SMTP authentication, but since they often
> run mailserver on that IP (which is why they send mail from it), it's not always
> possible.
>
> Of course we can change their DNS names, but should FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP really
> match this kind of users? It would be nice to combine FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP check
> with __RDNS_STATIC the same way RDNS_DYNAMIC does.
>
> (btw, aren't RDNS_DYNAMIC and FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP kind of redundant?)
yes, they are :(
I'd prefer to remove FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP if possible -- it's entirely
redundant with RDNS_DYNAMIC. there are probably other rules in the
rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf file that are similar,
I think.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5682] FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP matches static addresses
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5682
------- Additional Comments From uhlar@fantomas.sk 2007-10-21 07:04 -------
similar bug 5488 caused zeroing scores of two rules.
I wonder if I have to change the generic DNS names of our static DSL customers
to contain all segments of their IPs just to lower the scores (or even not to
score), because 3 IP segments score high, 4 segments do not. In the past, I
skipped first segment to have shorter DNS names.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Bug 5682] FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP matches static addresses
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5682
jm@jmason.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org 2007-10-30 06:13 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'd prefer to remove FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP if possible -- it's entirely
> redundant with RDNS_DYNAMIC. there are probably other rules in the
> rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf file that are similar,
> I think.
ok, I've commented FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP and FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D (the latter is
similarly redundant to RDNS_DYNAMIC). I also commented FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB,
since it doesn't seem to hit any mail at all.
committed to trunk:
: jm 196...; svn commit -m "bug 5682: remove FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP,
FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D, due to false positives and redundancy with RDNS_DYNAMIC;
remove FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB due to no hits" rules/50_scores.cf rulesrc/sandbox
Sending rulesrc/sandbox/emailed/00_FVGT_File001.cf
Sending rules/50_scores.cf
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 590055.
3.2.x:
: jm 174...; svn commit -m "bug 5682: remove FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP,
FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D, due to false positives and redundancy with RDNS_DYNAMIC;
remove FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB due to no hits" rules/50_scores.cf
rulesrc/10_force_active.cf
Sending rules/50_scores.cf
Sending rulesrc/10_force_active.cf
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 590056.
and 3.2.x updates:
: jm 254...; svn commit -m "bug 5682: remove FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP,
FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D, due to false positives and redundancy with RDNS_DYNAMIC;
remove FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB due to no hits"
Sending 50_scores.cf
Sending 72_active.cf
Transmitting file data ..
Committed revision 590058.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.