On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:58:10 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 02.03.2016 um 14:12 schrieb RW: > > The FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_* rules were a bit broken until the end of > > January, but for the last month they have been proper mutually > > exclusive, deep and last-external tests. Any problems with the deep > > hits are down to the rule generation corpus not matching your mail > > rather than poor rule design. The ideal way to fix this is to > > contribute to the QA process > > no, such tests are a matter of what they are doing
Why's that? There are some tests that aren't done deep for good logical reasons. For example dynamic-pool rDNS is a spam sign in the last-external receivedheader, but is perfectly normal in a submission received header or a webmail originating-ip header. RFC violations are not normal practice anywhere, so there's no intrinsic reason not to test for them on deep headers. It's all about results. > and no auto-scoring / corpus will be able to change that at all The only argument you have made against these rules is that they don't work for you. They do work on the corpus that generates the rule scores, so clearly the corpus does matter.
