Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> writes: >>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...
Thanks to all of you for the responses! I'll weaken the rule a bit and see how it goes -- looking at total scores for the spam that makes it past SA, just a point or two should do it. It was helpful seeing everyone's thought-process here, thanks again. E
