Re: dkim failed, but bonus?

On 2025-11-12 at 07:41:45 UTC-0500 (Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:41:45 +0100)
Thomas Barth via users <[email protected]>
is rumored to have said:

> But any idea, why SA sets DKIM_VALID=-0.1 ?

I don't have a solution for your whole problem but I can answer this...

A valid DKIM signature is not very useful *by itself* in deciding 
whether a particular message is ham or spam. Spammers know how to set up 
DKIM. That would normally be a reason to make it an unscored  sub-rule 
(i.e. __DKIM_VALID) however because we believed users may want to know 
that without needing to dig too deeply, so we made it a rule on its own. 
Giving it a -0.1 score is just a way to make it essentially meaningless 
on its own. Arguably it should be -0.01, but that shows up in some cases 
as "-0.0" which would be confusing.



-- 
  Bill Cole
  [email protected] or [email protected]
  (AKA @[email protected] and many *@billmail.scconsult.com 
addresses)
  Not Currently Available For Hire