Mike Jackson wrote: >> TOP HAM RULES FIRED >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM >> %OFHAM >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 1 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 88943 13.50 15.85 12.68 >> 25.27 > > That worries me. Granted, at most that will add 0.479 to a message (when > used with the default 3.1.1 scores), but to have your #1 *ham* rule be > one that's supposed to identify *spam* doesn't speak well for the rule. > I like RFCI; I feed it bogusmx or DSN-violating mail whenever I can. > But, the abuse and postmaster lists contain far too many *major* ISPs > for them to be reliable indicators of spam.
SpamAssassin's perceptron appears to agree with you, it has never in history given this rule as much as 0.5 points: Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.0/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.374 0 0 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.1/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.374 0 0 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.374 0 0 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.3/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.374 0 0 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.4/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.374 0 0 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1.0/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.479 0 0.200 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.1.1/rules/50_scores.cf:score DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0 0.479 0 0.200
