Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
I get a lot of spam that passes the RP_MATCHES_RCVD test; it wouldn't
make it into my inbox otherwise. I see the scoring recently got bumped
to -3.0, which makes false negatives even more likely.
I'm not expert enough in the nature of spam to really understand why
this test is so strong, nor to feel confident in simply whacking a few
points off it without knowing more.
In the year or so that I've been running my own mail server, I don't
think I've seen a *single* false positive (at least not one that I
noticed), but get maybe an average of two spam mails into my inbox every
day. I've beefed up the BAYES scores, and that helped, but haven't
tweaked anything else.
Can anyone tell me why it's scored so heavily? Would it be a bad idea to
just drop it down to -1.5 or something?
On 23.11.16 10:29, Kris Deugau wrote:
This is a rule whose usefulness is likely to vary a lot more for your
mail stream.
Locally, I found it was firing on enough of the reported false-negatives
that I squashed it down to a purely advisory -0.001 quite a while ago,
and I haven't seen any issues with doing so.
I didn't disable it outright as some others do, since it's used in
several meta rules.
meta rules should match __RP_MATCHES_RCVD which is exactly the same rule
- blanking RP_MATCHES_RCVD should make no difference
Thus I (again) recommend blanking it...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
