Re: RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO

[Reindl Harald]

Am 03.03.2016 um 17:59 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

On 03.03.16 16:54, RW wrote:

FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_1 is a last-external check
FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 is a deep check with some additional exclusions

These are mutually exclusive _1 suppresses _2

it's because

72_active.cf:meta    FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2      __FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 &&
!ALL_TRUSTED && !FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_1 && !__VIA_ML && !__HAS_ERRORS_TO

RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO is an independent deep check and overlaps heavily with
either FSL_* rule.

I wouldn't say so, at least on my system.

% zcat /var/log/mail*.gz | cat - /var/log/mail /var/log/mail.1 | grep
RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO | grep -c FSL_HELO_BARE_IP
5
% zcat /var/log/mail*.gz | cat - /var/log/mail /var/log/mail.1 | grep
RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO | grep -vc FSL_HELO_BARE_IP
36

what makes the whole problem even more worse because we have a unpredictable hit for similar rules and the risk that more than of of them misfires

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature