On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:14:12 -0400 Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > Vernon, do you have a recommended score for the implementation of > > DCC with SA? There are concerns that bulk mail from good senders > > has been hit by DCC which is completely by design. > > Vernon replied off-list so I wanted to bring the relevant portion back > to the list: > > "My general suggestion is that SA+DCC clients that don't use > whitelists for bulk mail (I still say whitelists are required) should > use a DCC score that is not large enough to tell SA to mark a message > "spam" purely from the DCC result, but large enough to push other > signs of spam over the threshold. vjs" > > So I think DCC users should consider moving DCC to an __ test
I don't see why it's not auto generated - perhaps with a cap of 1.5. > and > identify things like DNSBLs with whitelist entries and other tests > that can use DCC to meta more effective classification rules. > > Anyone has any thoughts on rules to submit, let me know! It may be useful to combine DCC with deep versions of DNSBLs that are currently last-external. On their own these would FP when listed dynamic IP addresses are reassigned, but it's pretty rare that listed addresses get transferred to hosts that are sending bulk mail. An obvious candidate would be XBL, since the zen lookups are already done for SBL. There's probably also a lot of scope for using DCC with ordinary body rules that are testing for spams that purport to be personal mail.
