Mailing List Archive

PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all.
I'm sorry for not using bugzilla, but the new rule for PDS_NO_HELO_DNS
is mostly hittng real emails at my site 1168 real emails versus 219 spam
mls. Luckily, the score is not high, to be making any difference.
FWIW. - Mark
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
On 7/10/19 5:54 PM, Mark London wrote:
> I'm sorry for not using bugzilla, but the new rule for PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is mostly hittng real emails at my site 1168 real emails versus 219 spam mls.   Luckily, the score is not high, to be making any difference.   FWIW. - Mark
>
ruleqa has the same opinion:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20190709-r1862790-n&rule=PDS_NO_HELO_DNS&srcpath=&g=Change
Giovanni
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Giovanni Bechis wrote:

> On 7/10/19 5:54 PM, Mark London wrote:
>> I'm sorry for not using bugzilla, but the new rule for PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is mostly hittng real emails at my site 1168 real emails versus 219 spam mls.   Luckily, the score is not high, to be making any difference.   FWIW. - Mark

Not a problem. The users list is the correct place to first report
poorly-performing rules.

> ruleqa has the same opinion:
> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20190709-r1862790-n&rule=PDS_NO_HELO_DNS&srcpath=&g=Change

This looks like another case where the NET scores being generated only
weekly is causing problems with rules whose S/O profile has radically
changed.

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:04:39PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
> On 7/10/19 5:54 PM, Mark London wrote:
> > I'm sorry for not using bugzilla, but the new rule for PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is mostly hittng real emails at my site 1168 real emails versus 219 spam mls.?? Luckily, the score is not high, to be making any difference.?? FWIW. - Mark
> >
> ruleqa has the same opinion:
> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20190709-r1862790-n&rule=PDS_NO_HELO_DNS&srcpath=&g=Change
> Giovanni

PDS_NO_HELO_DNS should not even run for that nightly masscheck, since it's
net rule. Not sure why SA doesn't currently ignore net flagged rules
completely when net is disabled. Probably needs fixing..

It's also using stuff probably noone has yet used, askdns result in a meta
rule, which will always be false is net disabled.
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Henrik K wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:04:39PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
>> On 7/10/19 5:54 PM, Mark London wrote:
>>> I'm sorry for not using bugzilla, but the new rule for PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is mostly hittng real emails at my site 1168 real emails versus 219 spam mls.?? Luckily, the score is not high, to be making any difference.?? FWIW. - Mark
>>>
>> ruleqa has the same opinion:
>> https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20190709-r1862790-n&rule=PDS_NO_HELO_DNS&srcpath=&g=Change
>> Giovanni
>
> PDS_NO_HELO_DNS should not even run for that nightly masscheck, since it's
> net rule. Not sure why SA doesn't currently ignore net flagged rules
> completely when net is disabled. Probably needs fixing..

What if you have a meta that depends on a NET rule and a non-NET rule?

> It's also using stuff probably noone has yet used, askdns result in a meta
> rule, which will always be false is net disabled.

What surprises me is how it got published with a score > 1 with an S/O of
0.29?

https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20190706-r1862645-n/PDS_NO_HELO_DNS/detail

72_scores.cf:score PDS_NO_HELO_DNS 0.001 1.294 0.001 1.294

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1969 the technology to fake a Moon landing didn't exist,
but the technology to actually land there did.
Today, it is the opposite. -- unknown
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:40:31AM -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Henrik K wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 06:04:39PM +0200, Giovanni Bechis wrote:
> >>On 7/10/19 5:54 PM, Mark London wrote:
> >>>I'm sorry for not using bugzilla, but the new rule for PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is mostly hittng real emails at my site 1168 real emails versus 219 spam mls.?? Luckily, the score is not high, to be making any difference.?? FWIW. - Mark
> >>>
> >>ruleqa has the same opinion:
> >>https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20190709-r1862790-n&rule=PDS_NO_HELO_DNS&srcpath=&g=Change
> >> Giovanni
> >
> >PDS_NO_HELO_DNS should not even run for that nightly masscheck, since it's
> >net rule. Not sure why SA doesn't currently ignore net flagged rules
> >completely when net is disabled. Probably needs fixing..
>
> What if you have a meta that depends on a NET rule and a non-NET rule?

I think we have larger issues to think about, since even this will always
hit:

meta FOO !NONEXISTINGRULE

Reasonable solution would be ignoring the meta completely, if all rule
dependencies are not met. Of course this could break lots of metas between
sandboxes etc, it should be implemented so everyone is aware of it. Perhaps
a new tflag require_meta_deps or similar could be implemented to maintain
legacy compatibility..
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
I believe this is because AskDNS requests don't get ignored on masscheck
regardless of tflags - I've removed the rule from sandbox and will
investigate this tentacle of the masscheck

Paul
Re: PDS_NO_HELO_DNS is not helpful at all. [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 18:11:58 +0100
Paul Stead wrote:

Your headers had:


X-Spam-Status: ... PDS_NO_HELO_DNS
...
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) by mx1-he-de.apache.org (ASF Mail Server
at mx1-he-de.apache.org) with ESMTPS id E26387F4F0 for
<users@spamassassin.apache.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 17:12:16 +0000 (UTC)



There's a problem here that __HELO_RECORD looks to be only checking
IPv4. The HELO has an AAAA record.