http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3417
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-26 00:09 ------- >Yes. Please read about SPF, it's a much cleaner system than this, >(and also uses DNS as transport FWIW). SPF need to be implemented at many internet servers. >Also there's no way we could use a rule for catching spam if it hits >50% of ham... that's way too false-positive-prone. I think, this rule more effective that AWL (false-positive-prone), DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM I think, effectivly (points after learning) - should be main criteria to reject rules. I am looking forward that somebody check effectifly of this rule. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
