http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3417
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-26 16:18 ------- Subject: Re: New Rule: Checking sender IP against MX records From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:54:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >2) got 0 hits for me after ~3k mails. > > It strange, because [EMAIL PROTECTED] flag on this rule :) > You did't received messages from us with first 3k emails? I don't put spam-related mails into my corpus or filter them through SpamAssassin in general. > I remain in opinion, that if we will create "Wide*Ratio" rating for whitelist > and blacklist rules, my rule will be in top20. I think you missed the point of my previous mail. So I'm not going to post any more in the ticket after this mail. Your proposed rule is trivially forgable, meaning it will absolutely not be considered for general use, even if it was at 100% ham right now. Those types of rules are targeted by spammers and become useless as time goes on. This is why we have very strict requirements for "nice" rules now. The "first untrusted only" version is harder to forge, but there are still a relatively high percentage of spam hits (~1.8% in my test). The reason for this is that your rule deals with "forging", and not spam detection. It is perfectly valid for spam to be hit by this rule -- in fact that's the end goal of such rules, to stop address forgery. Therefore it is completely not appropriate to have as a whitelist in and of itself. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
