Am 03.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:25:17 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote:Am 02.03.2016 um 23:13 schrieb RW:On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:45:15 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote:Am 02.03.2016 um 22:12 schrieb RW: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 matterVERY_LONG_REPTO_SHORT_MSG with a poison-pill score showed how much you can trust that in real lifeYou just provided a another example of why the corpus does matterthe corpus is no magic which solves every problem a misguided rule written with wrong expectations can only be mitigated by the corpus and mass-tests but it will never get fixed by it when the rule should not exist in that way from the begin your expectation that the mass-test corpus can reproduce the whole real world is fundamentally brokenUnbelievable. If you think your bad experience with FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 is too unusual for QA ever to pick-up on, then what are you complaining about? Your previous position was that it's normal for the rule to do more harm than good, and it's such an obviously bad idea that it shouldn't even have been tried in the first place
for deep-header-inspection it's an obviously bad idea as well as RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO and there is no "previous position" - i said that from the first moment on and ANYTHING doing HELO/PTR tests on any foreign received header does more harm than good
just because it never makes the difference for catch more spam but has un-needed false positives - i am doing my job long enough to see how often deep-header inspection makes troubles for no gain (not only with SpamAssassin)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
