Matt, thanks for this. It's a great resource. However, I'm wondering why the following were scored as zero and thus don't have numbers to support their efficacy or lack thereof:
0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.11 0.00 RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.11 0.00 RCVD_IN_MAPS_RSS 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.11 0.00 RCVD_IN_MAPS_RBL 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.11 0.00 RCVD_IN_MAPS_DUL 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.11 0.00 RCVD_IN_MAPS_NML 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.500 0.11 0.00 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET
The MAPS lists are for-pay.. Since not all the developers are paid subscribers, they do not test them. This won't likely change.
Spamcop was historically a "donation required" service, and that status kept it out of the default test set. Spamcop now is merely a "donations accepted" service, so I suspect it will eventually work it's way into the test set.. I think it just boils down that it was in too late for 2.60's testing. Since spamcop has a score, I suspect one of the developers did a quick "mini test" to evolve a score for spamcop right before release.
Policy wise, SORBS_BLOCK doesn't make much sense to use in SA... SORBS_BLOCK isn't a list of spammers, it's a list of admins that have demanded that SORBS not test their networks. I suspect it was included in the code for only completeness since other SORBS checks were being handled.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
