Greg Ward wrote:
>On 01 March 2002, Nigel Metheringham said:
>
>>I can see the idea you are working on, but -10 seems a huge weighting
>>for this rule (ie twice the default spam threshold).
>>
>Agreed. I'm as dubious of high negative scores as I am of high
>positives. Gut instinct tells me -1 .. -2 for "non-spam" MUAs, because
>as soon as the smart spammers notice that rule, guess what they'll add
>to their headers...
>
Yeah, I don't see this as being a good idea -- liable to generate too
much positive weighting, even with a -1.
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot.
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
