pbl not lastexternal ?
xpunkt opened this issue · 5 comments
PBL is part of ZEN, and is then included in RCVD_IN_ZEn_LASTEXTERNAL
Line 14 in d543bc4
there is diffrence in core spamassassin rule and dqs rule ?
i report since i see postfixmaillist hit pbl, and i have all maillist trusted_networks, my own faults ?
PBL should never be used in deep received chain scanning. As it is a policy blocklist, and often maintained by ISP themselves, it's meant to be a list of IPs to never accept direct emails from.
Obviously it is perfectly normal to have PBL hit on deep chain inspection, as many home users would have their IP listed here. But in this case no score at all should be assigned to PBL, because the home user would have used a legitimate mailserver to send their email.
This is the reason we use ZEN for -lastexternal checking, and rescored RCVD_IN_PBL to 0.001
this is a workaround that it only scores 0.001, i would like to make it score 100, but not hit deep checking, and my point is that core spamassassin have another rule then dqs
i started this ticket with excact lines in both to show the diffrence
only check_rbl_sub is using lastexternal from cache, check_rbl is not using cache results
Yeah we redefined the score.
From our point of view, it doesn't make sense to check PBL in lastexternal, because it's already in ZEN. Of course you can have a particular use case, but our goal is to provide a drop-in addon for SpamAssassin to make it use DQS at best
We kept RCVD_IN_PBL because in some SA versions (can't remember which one) even if you score the rule at 0 it would still make the lookup (observed with debugging).
I trust that more advanced SA users like yourself can easily overcome this little inconvenience. As I said, this plugin is aimed to reach a broad audience that may be not very experienced with SA.