Matt Sergeant wrote: > I would suggest that we be extremely careful about checks that get given > a score over 5. Part of the beauty of SpamAssassin (and heuristics in > general) is that usually a hit just contributes to the overall score, but > doesn't necessarily tip things over. Having said that, some things almost > inevitably should be over 5, like ratware.
I agree - with too many scores over 5 SA doesn't have much advantage over a simple set of procmail filters. I think the GA scores should be reduced (or limited?) next time - I'm thinking of limiting mine so that nothing scores over 3.0. That way a message would need to meet, at minimum, two strong spam criteria in order to be flagged as spam. After the GA runs someone could override scores that are absolute spam indicators - i.e. ratware - with a higher score. For now I've just set my required_hits to 7.0, which seems to work pretty well with the current scores. -- michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind." -- Marston Bates _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
