On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:02:41PM +0000, John Robinson wrote: > On 18/11/2006 10:52, Dave Evans wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 10:42:22AM +0000, Martin Nicholas wrote: > [...] > >> Needless to say, eventually this tripped up my anti-SPAM tests on the HELO > >> name by doubling the score! > > > > Needless to say, your anti-spam test needs fixing then. > > I disagree. If the client gets its HELO wrong twice, it should be scored > accordingly.
It's entirely according to the viewpoint of the administrator. The original poster said this "doubled the score", which I took to mean that he regarded this as a bad thing, which needed fixing. Thus, I suggested that he fixed it. On the other hand, maybe /you/ want some sort of score which /is/ increased for every bad "HELO"; in which case, go for it. Both tests are perfectly reasonable things to want to do, I would think. But if you intended to implement one, and you ended up implementing the other, then you might want to fix it. -- Dave Evans Power Internet PGP key: http://powernet.co.uk/~davide/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
