On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:07:04 -0600
Amir Caspi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't realize this until now but it looks like, for at
> least the last 6 months or so, a few emails from users@spamassassin
> have been dropped into my spam folder due to what I perceive to be a
> bug in the HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST rule. Specifically, I've got
> some blacklist_uri_host rules, but because I don't want those to be
> poison pills, I've adjusted URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST to score only 3
> points nominally (technically, 4 3.5 4 3, but for me that's almost
> always "3"). That score redef works fine, but then
> HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST hits with 100 points, even though the
> blacklisted URI is NOT in the headers,
I haven't really paid much attention to uri host rules, so I'm not
certain what's supposed to be happening but the definitions are:
body URI_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST eval:check_uri_host_in_blacklist()
header HEADER_HOST_IN_BLACKLIST eval:check_uri_host_listed('BLACK')
These appear to be the same thing. The first call is just a shorthand
form for the second. I don't see where headers come into it. I think the
second rule is probably just a mistake.
IIWY I wouldn't try to rescore the blacklisted URIs. I'd create a
separate list for the TLDs
enlist_uri_host (NEW_TLDS) science xxx
...
body URI_NEW_TLDS eval:check_uri_host_listed('NEW_TLDS')
