Kevin Buzzard writes: >We have already established in this thread that it is probably *not* >a good idea in general to say "if razor says it's spam with >probability > 90% then it's spam" because razor can make mistakes, >or perhaps be tricked into making mistakes. Indeed the _point_ of spamassassin >is that it's giving you a whole host of other tests on top of razor. >Similarly we should not say "if pyzor says it's spam then it's spam" >and so on. So we are aware of the possibility that each of Razor, >Pyzor and Dcc are capable of making mistakes. [By "mistake" I mean here >"saying it's spam when it's not", I'm not getting into the issue >of saying it's not spam when it is.]
BTW the big issue here is that many of the reports for DCC, pyzor and razor are being issued from unsupervised spamtraps. Quite a few of those are subscribed to low-volume non-spam lists who have not cleaned up old bouncing addresses; the spamtrap maintainer then converts those addrs into spamtraps after they've been bouncing for a while, assuming that legit list owners will have cleaned out bounces. Unfortunately a *lot* of big nonspam mailing lists do not bother doing this. :( Hence FPs, --j. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
