Apparently I'm hitting spamassassin tests :( On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:41:50PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Nov 07, Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The SpamAssassin scores are carefully optimized -- I won't change any > > scores from upstream. What seems more likely is that your > Yes, I am arguing that the scores for these two tests are too much > aggressive. > The message was rejected (even after a -2.3 bonus score!) *only* because > it had a generic-looking rDNS hostname also used in the HELO[1]: > > > Received: from dsl-217-155-153-11.zen.co.uk (dsl-217-155-153-11.zen.co.uk > > [217.155.153.11])
That's a static IP allocation. Check the whois data for 217.155.153.11 It should never *be* triggering any dynamic IP rulesets (in a perfect world). If it does, then the ruleset is broken. (Or my ISP is putting my IP address in the DUL which is possible I suppose -- I've never checked.) > This may not have been the wisest choice by the administrator > considering the circumstances, but I think it's hard to argue that > people should use an HELO string different from the rDNS... Quite. If I set it differently to the rDNS then I hit another set of reject rules. Unfortunately, my ISP doesn't currently offer the ability to set my own rDNS to match my personal domain, which is what I'd prefer to do obviously. > If after this you still believe that a 7.7 score is correct then please > say so, at least he (who I Cc'ed) will know why in the future all his > mail will be rejected by spamassassin. :-) 7.7! Seems extreme for someone who has a static ip address & has set the SMTP HELO to match the rDNS for that ip. Given that this is *precisely* what is suggested by the relevant RFCs I'm slightly peeved! Should I prod spamassassin upstream to whinge? cheers, Phil -- http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
