You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@spamassassin.apache.org by wt...@apache.org on 2010/12/31 04:47:20 UTC
svn commit: r1054046 -
/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf
Author: wtogami
Date: Fri Dec 31 03:47:20 2010
New Revision: 1054046
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1054046&view=rev
Log:
Workaround Bug #6527 for this as well.
Modified:
spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf
Modified: spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf?rev=1054046&r1=1054045&r2=1054046&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf (original)
+++ spamassassin/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/khopesh/20_khop_bl.cf Fri Dec 31 03:47:20 2010
@@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ header RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM eval:check_rbl(
describe RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM Received via a relay in NiX Spam (heise.de)
tflags RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM net nopublish reuse # 20091123
-ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval # {
-
# Limit SpamCop to LASTEXT like every other DNSBL ... why haven't we tried this?
# ... and what a difference! @20091204, 21.59/2.59 became 3.80/0.07
# ... @20091128, 18.87/2.16 became 5.30/0.09
@@ -99,6 +97,8 @@ header RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP eval:check_rbl_t
describe RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
tflags RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP net nopublish # 20091123
+ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval # {
+
# we have the non-lastext data; let's see how good it is if we clean it up a bit
# we'll exclude anything that might have too much info relaying (mailling lists
# and freemail). my intuition is 35-50% spam, 2-4% ham, but we could get lucky.