Dan wrote: >>> 1) Is capturing header output text the best way to implement DCC in SA? >> >> No, using the DCC plugin that already comes with SA is the best way. >> >> Edit your v310.pre and load the dcc plugin. SA already has pre-scored >> and tested rules built in. No further work needed. > > Excellent Matt. Is there a way to process the various DCC outputs > with this architecture? Searching the "factory" configuration, this > entry seems to handle scoring?: > > ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC > score DCC_CHECK 0 1.37 0 2.17 > endif # Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DCC > > This looks a bit inflexible, can the plugin do more than take a single > DCC score and assign 3 weights to the output?
No.. at this time the DCC plugin is either hit, or not. You can adjust the fuzz threshold with the dcc_*_max options. See the plugin docs at: http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.1.x/dist/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_DCC.html All that said, I can't see why you'd want to do anything else with DCC. The FP rate on DCC, even with the defaults of |999999 for fuzz counts, is significant. In the SA 3.1.0 set3 mass-checks, DCC_CHECK had a S/O of| 0.979, meaning that 2.1% of email matched by it was nonspam. |I can't see how any lower fuzz values would be of any use, as they should, theoretically, have lower S/O's, and would only be worth small fractions of a point. |
