Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> writes: > On 11.05.23 10:58, Greg Troxel wrote: >>I am seeing a lot of "claim your prize from X", where X is a known >>company, coming from fresh foo.autos domains. I bet y'all are seeing >>this too. Until these get on blocklists they don't score that high. >> >>One rule that does hit is >> >> OBFU_UNSUB_UL >> >>which is defined in 72_active.cf as meta, and does not seem to have a >>score defined. >> >>I put in local.cf (not knowing where it was defined) >> >>score OBFU_UNSUB_UL (1) >> >>to bump it up, but I got an error that I can't adjust an undefined >>score. However, scoring gives it 1 point. > > the default score for any rule is 1 poing, unless that rule starts > with T_ (0.01) or __ (0, used for meta rules)
ok and not surprising. But is it good practice for the main distributed rules to rely on this default? It feels like a lint/pedantic error to define a rule that is not T_ or __ and does not have an assigned score. But maybe this is common and normal. > so, you have changed nothing. I asked for an additional point over the previous score. I got an error in the log: May 11 10:47:46 s1 spamd[11723]: config: score: relative score without previous setting in configuration May 11 10:47:46 s1 spamd[11723]: config: invalid 'score' value in /usr/pkg/etc/spamassassin/local.cf (line 271): score\tOBFU_UNSUB_UL\t\t(2) which is what I'm asking about. >>I wonder if there is a default 1 point for rules with no score, but the >>adjustment process doesn't respect that default, or if not what is going >>on. > > https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/4.0.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html That says scores in () are relative to the "already set score". So technically this is not a failure to follow docs, in that no score is set. But it seems unhelpful to users not to be able to see FOO_RULE 1 in a report and to decide they like that rule and do score FOO_RULE (1) to tell SA to give it one local point plus the score that the official config gives is. So maybe that (n) expression should be ok with the implicit 1.
