On 10/12/2013 9:28 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Steve, the one who wrote this regex, would you please explain your >> reasoning behind giving this rule a score so high as 2.8, > > That score was auto-assigned by masscheck, where it is doing quite well: > > http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?rule=FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 > >> and engage in discussion WRT lowering the score, eliminating the >> overlap with the other bare IP HELO rules, etc? > > It seems that 94% of the ham hits in masscheck are against list mail, > and none of the spam hits are, so it would seem reasonable to add an > exclusion for list messages.
That seems to be what I'm seeing here. That exclusion would be nice. > Maddoc hasn't touched these rules since 2009, so I will go ahead and add > an exclusion for that. Great. Thank you. I assume this exclusion will be picked up via the daily update script? On 10/12/2013 9:22 PM, John Hardin wrote:> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required) > > Why did you lower the required score? Frankly, because I am not, and do not wish to become, an SA expert, with all the time/effort that entails. Bringing the required score down progressively until I found some "balance" seemed a better strategy, less fraught with potential peril than modifying the scores of individual stock rules, creating a bunch of custom rules, etc. Until somewhat recently that strategy seemed to be working relatively well. -- Stan
