At 09:06 AM 2/28/2002 -0600, Shane Williams wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote: > >> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have >> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think >> any message deserves having its spam score reduced by 8 points by >> virtue of its mentioning "www.monsterhut.com", a well-known spam >> source. > >This got me thinking. Does the corpus contain emails discussing spam? >If so, that would clearly throw off the evolution of scores. > >Similarly, I think part of the problem is that everyobody's spam and >non-spam may be vastly different. Obviously, the more sources the >corpus is drawn from the less this will be an issue, but until then >the GA will be craeting scores tuned more accurately for the types of >users who submit to the corpus.
The solution to the problem is to have rules like the ones mentioned above generate a positive score that will not by itself trigger rejection. A score of 1.5, for example, would require several other hits in order to have the message rejected. A score of -8 is completely unreasonable for this rule IMHO. reb _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
