Further on DNS_FROM_RFC_*

[Kurt Fitzner <kf...@excelcia.org>]

I just received some email from Spamcop, and thought to check the
spamassassin scores on it:

No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599,	
  DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME=0.001,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2,	
  FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=1.593,SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no version=3.1.7

I was quite amused to see the DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE score there, on a
message from spamcop.  I would suggest that if a major spam player like
spamcop doesn't accept abuse@ emails, then it's further indication that
perhaps the test isn't terribly useful as a determination of whether the
email is/isn't spam.

    Kurt

R: Further on DNS_FROM_RFC_*

[Giampaolo Tomassoni <g....@libero.it>]

> I just received some email from Spamcop, and thought to check the
> spamassassin scores on it:
> 
> No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599,	
>   DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME=0.001,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2,	
>   FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=1.593,SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no version=3.1.7
> 
> I was quite amused to see the DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE score there, on a
> message from spamcop.  I would suggest that if a major spam player like
> spamcop doesn't accept abuse@ emails, then it's further indication that
> perhaps the test isn't terribly useful as a determination of whether the
> email is/isn't spam.

Maybe this is why it scores just 0.2?

Giampaolo

> 
>     Kurt