Thank you all. Someone internally must have seen that rule and added it, I think I'm going to pull it out as it has way too many false positives. I took the assumption (we know) that it was one of the base rules.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:43 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote: > On 28.04.23 10:58, Joey J wrote: > >I'm trying to understand why SA keeps scoring this rule, when the sender > >only has their from address, no reply to etc, nothing helping me to > >understand why. > > > >I'm guessing here, but this would be where the reply to differs from the > >from? > > > >Any assistance appreciated. > > I don't see FROM_RETURNPATH_MISMATCH in spamassassin rules, perhaps you > fetched it from 3rd > party source? > > maybe from here: > > > https://www.lexo.ch/blog/2018/07/solved-spf-setting-does-not-apply-to-return-path-causing-more-spam-and-phishing-e-mails-spamassassin-postfix/ > > however, that is quite complicated regex and quite possibly wrong,. > > -- > Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ > Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. > Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. > Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? > -- Thanks! Joey
