That’s easy though at least. Set the DNSWL rule to 0. I appreciate their effort but it’s simply not an accurate way to determine the value of an email in 2024. It’s never been the deciding factor between whether or not an email was spam, in any email I’ve audited in the last decade.
> On Wednesday, May 08, 2024 at 2:53 PM, kurt.va1der.ca via users > <users@spamassassin.apache.org (mailto:users@spamassassin.apache.org)> wrote: > > I received a (relatively) well crafted Phishing email today. It was clearly a > well planned campaign. The Spamassassin score was as follows: > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=GOOG_REDIR_NORDNS=0.001, > HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, > NORDNS_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5,RDNS_NONE=1.274, > SPF_FAIL=0.919,SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001,WIKI_IMG=2.397 > autolearn=disabled version=3.4.6 > > > DNS white-hole list checks should never ever pass if the SPF checks fail. In > fact, I can't think of any whitelist test that should pass if SPF fails. I > could attach a higher score to SPF_FAIL, but that would unduly affect cases > where the sender wasn't white listed. > > > I need a way to force Spammassassin to negate the effect of one test on the > passing of another. > > > > > > >
