https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7944
John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |jhar...@impsec.org Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #1 from John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> --- (In reply to stephansfourie from comment #0) > I think the __MSGID_OK_HOST in that meta is perhaps missing an exclamation > mark before it. No, that was intentional based on a combination that was fairly spammy at the time. The scored version has exclusions for ham hits and is doing fairly well in masscheck: https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20211114-r1895009-n/FONT_INVIS_MSGID/detail I've added another current ham exclusion to reduce the FPs further. > This matches on good message IDs It also matches on spam having good message IDs: https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20211114-r1895009-n/__MSGID_OK_HOST/detail If __MSGID_OK_HOST + other rules hit well on spam and poorly on ham then that combination is a useful spam sign even though the single rule isn't useful by itself. The fact that a rule hits ham is not, by itself, a problem. Has this rule been contributing to hams being scored spammy? Rule discussions should take place on the Users mailing list, please follow up there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.