Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > I get a lot of spam that passes the RP_MATCHES_RCVD test; it wouldn't > make it into my inbox otherwise. I see the scoring recently got bumped > to -3.0, which makes false negatives even more likely. > > I'm not expert enough in the nature of spam to really understand why > this test is so strong, nor to feel confident in simply whacking a few > points off it without knowing more. > > In the year or so that I've been running my own mail server, I don't > think I've seen a *single* false positive (at least not one that I > noticed), but get maybe an average of two spam mails into my inbox every > day. I've beefed up the BAYES scores, and that helped, but haven't > tweaked anything else. > > Can anyone tell me why it's scored so heavily? Would it be a bad idea to > just drop it down to -1.5 or something?
This is a rule whose usefulness is likely to vary a lot more for your mail stream. Locally, I found it was firing on enough of the reported false-negatives that I squashed it down to a purely advisory -0.001 quite a while ago, and I haven't seen any issues with doing so. I didn't disable it outright as some others do, since it's used in several meta rules. -kgd
