On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:59:33 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > 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 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7292 > >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 That probably because in mailing lists you can have RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO on its own. What do you get the other way around? FSL_HELO_BARE_IP without RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO.
