From: "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I lately saw an FP with RCVD illegal IP, because of a 127.0.0.80 IP.
while this rarely used, it's not illegal. so the rule is just bogus IMHO.
50_scores.cf:score RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP 1.585 0.234 1.813 0.288
With a set 3 score of 0.288, I'd say this isn't a big hitter anyway.
That's enough to move a ham to the spam zone.
The test for 127.x.x.x is a little spurious. The entire /8 is legal.
And if you play a bit in various stacks you can easily make use of the
addresses on your local host. Now if you see 127.0.0.1 and 127.<not>0.0.1
about equally and the former is far less likely to be spam than the latter
I suppose it is reasonable to give the not .0.0.1 form a positive score.
It's all statistics. You can trim the rules all you want. But you are
always going to suffer some false positives and some false negatives.
The better the quality of the rule set the less difficult it is to make
good decisions. But the God factor will always trip you up. If you make
a foolproof "no ham ever formats a message this way" rule you will find
that God will, just for the fun of it, puncture your hubris and breed a
better idiot who WILL format a message that way. It's all a part of God's
"Fool Plan". Make something foolproof and God breeds better fools. Never
ever underestimate the foolishness of animate homo sapiens.
{^_-}
