Re: Question about missing rules for 3.2.1 upgrade
Albert E. Whale wrote:[color=blue]
> I recently upgraded to 3.2.1
> In doing so, I find that the following rules which were previously used
> are no longer in service.
> Can someone explain why?
Um, because it's an upgrade?
Rules get removed frequently. They get removed for lots of different
reasons. The most common are:
1) The become ineffective due to changes in spam or nonspam, which
causes their S/O ratio to drop below 0.80
2) A better-performing rule gets added, making them irrelevant.
I suspect ADVANCE_FEE_1 fell victim to cause #1. Even in 3.1.0's
mass-checks the S/O of this rule was questionable (0.828 in set0, and
all 4 sets under 0.85). This was, in essence, a rule with a history of
NO_REAL_NAME shouldn't have even been in 3.1.0. It's S/O was 0.511,
meaning it matched almost as much spam as nonspam. Good riddance to bad
The same applies to NO_OBLIGATION. It was at 0.883 in 3.1.0's set 0.
Not sure about FORGED_RCVD_HELO and DNS_FROM_RFC_POST.