On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:02:41PM +0000, John Robinson wrote:
> On 18/11/2006 10:52, Dave Evans wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 10:42:22AM +0000, Martin Nicholas wrote:
> [...]
> >> Needless to say, eventually this tripped up my anti-SPAM tests on the HELO
> >> name by doubling the score!
> >
> > Needless to say, your anti-spam test needs fixing then.
>
> I disagree. If the client gets its HELO wrong twice, it should be scored
> accordingly.
It's entirely according to the viewpoint of the administrator. The original
poster said this "doubled the score", which I took to mean that he regarded
this as a bad thing, which needed fixing. Thus, I suggested that he fixed it.
On the other hand, maybe /you/ want some sort of score which /is/ increased
for every bad "HELO"; in which case, go for it.
Both tests are perfectly reasonable things to want to do, I would think. But
if you intended to implement one, and you ended up implementing the other,
then you might want to fix it.
--
Dave Evans
Power Internet
PGP key:
http://powernet.co.uk/~davide/pgpkey
