I sent myself an e-mail with two URIs, two different domains, which are in a number of surbl lists (sc, ws and ob specificly). However, only the first domain was actually 'caught' and included in the spam filter report in SA (2.63).
Shouldn't each specific domain which is included in a SURBL be used to establish a score? I know it's unusual for a spam to include a URI for two different domains, but shouldn't it increase the score anyway?
David
On Saturday, June 26, 2004, 7:54:54 PM, David Coulson wrote:
I sent myself an e-mail with two URIs, two different domains, which are in a number of surbl lists (sc, ws and ob specificly). However, only the first domain was actually 'caught' and included in the spam filter report in SA (2.63).
Shouldn't each specific domain which is included in a SURBL be used to establish a score? I know it's unusual for a spam to include a URI for two different domains, but shouldn't it increase the score anyway?
That's an interesting question which I'll leave for the implementors of SURBL-using programs to answer. :-)
Jeff C.
Hi!
Shouldn't each specific domain which is included in a SURBL be used to establish a score? I know it's unusual for a spam to include a URI for two different domains, but shouldn't it increase the score anyway?
That's an interesting question which I'll leave for the implementors of SURBL-using programs to answer. :-)
If you see it 'per mail' its listed in for example SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, it doesnt matter if its listed once of twice, its listed...
Bye, Raymond.
On Sunday, June 27, 2004, 1:46:44 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
On Saturday, June 26, 2004, 7:54:54 PM, David Coulson wrote:
Shouldn't each specific domain which is included in a SURBL be used to establish a score? I know it's unusual for a spam to include a URI for two different domains, but shouldn't it increase the score anyway?
That's an interesting question which I'll leave for the implementors of SURBL-using programs to answer. :-)
If you see it 'per mail' its listed in for example SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, it doesnt matter if its listed once of twice, its listed...
On the other hand, I can see David's point that it could possibly be useful to increase scores for additional spam domains within a given message. But that could lead to some inflated scores too.
From my point of view on the data side, that's an implementation
question. ;-)
Jeff C.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 02:39:25AM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Sunday, June 27, 2004, 1:46:44 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
On Saturday, June 26, 2004, 7:54:54 PM, David Coulson wrote:
Shouldn't each specific domain which is included in a SURBL be used to establish a score? I know it's unusual for a spam to include a URI for two different domains, but shouldn't it increase the score anyway?
That's an interesting question which I'll leave for the implementors of SURBL-using programs to answer. :-)
If you see it 'per mail' its listed in for example SPAMCOP_URI_RBL, it doesnt matter if its listed once of twice, its listed...
There really isn't an easy way to do this through spamassassin's scoring. Basically a hit against a single RBL counts as a single rule hit and you can only hit a rule once. I don't think it's that critical to have multiple hits, since most people are setting the scores high enough that a single hit is enough.
I think your case is valid and you may consider bringing it up on the spamassassin-dev list to see if they are handling this differently in 3.0.
--eric
On the other hand, I can see David's point that it could possibly be useful to increase scores for additional spam domains within a given message. But that could lead to some inflated scores too.
From my point of view on the data side, that's an implementation
question. ;-)
Jeff C.
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-
David Coulson -
Eric Kolve -
Jeff Chan -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn