You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Amir Caspi <ce...@3phase.com> on 2019/06/10 18:13:01 UTC
Re: Proposed rule for too many dots in From
On Jan 26, 2019, at 10:27 AM, John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Amir Caspi wrote:
>
>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:46 AM, John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Amir Caspi <Ce...@3phase.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> header AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS From =~ /<(?:\w{2,}\.){2,}\w+@/
>>>
>>> Argh. I lost track of that over the holidays. Thanks for the reminder, adding it now.
>>
>> Anything interesting with the results on sandboxing this rule?
>
> Not really, at least not by itself.
It looks like this rule was still being tested last month (I saw it hitting a bunch of my spams), but now appears to be gone (it's not hitting on spams that it normally would). Did you decide it wasn't sufficiently useful, either alone or in meta?
Cheers.
--- Amir
Re: Proposed rule for too many dots in From
Posted by Paul Stead <pa...@gmail.com>.
Looks like it was hitting a fair amount of ham the last week or so.
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190607-r1860743-n/T_AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS/detail
The last few days have looked a bit better:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190609-r1860879-n/T_AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS/detail
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190610-r1860930-n/T_AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS/detail
3 days good performance on ruleqa equals promotion followed by a scoring
day.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 19:13, Amir Caspi <ce...@3phase.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2019, at 10:27 AM, John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Amir Caspi wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:46 AM, John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Amir Caspi <Ce...@3phase.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> header AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS From =~ /<(?:\w{2,}\.){2,}\w+@/
> >>>
> >>> Argh. I lost track of that over the holidays. Thanks for the reminder,
> adding it now.
> >>
> >> Anything interesting with the results on sandboxing this rule?
> >
> > Not really, at least not by itself.
>
> It looks like this rule was still being tested last month (I saw it
> hitting a bunch of my spams), but now appears to be gone (it's not hitting
> on spams that it normally would). Did you decide it wasn't sufficiently
> useful, either alone or in meta?
>
> Cheers.
>
> --- Amir
>
>