On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:39:58 +0100 Benny Pedersen wrote: > That one should not trigger in deap header tests
RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO doesn't do what the description says. It's actually a *bare* IP address test (i.e. for an RFC violation rather than simply an IP address), something that is better covered by the FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_[12] rules. IMO it should go because it's a near duplicate of __FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2. Once it's gone the FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_* rules will increase their scores, and can be sensibly capped. The FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_* rules were a bit broken until the end of January, but for the last month they have been proper mutually exclusive, deep and last-external tests. Any problems with the deep hits are down to the rule generation corpus not matching your mail rather than poor rule design. The ideal way to fix this is to contribute to the QA process.
