maarten van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is not a single rule that scores > higher than 4.999. That is plain wrong in my book; let's say we encounter the > word "vicodin" (which is totally absent in the current rules by the way!). > I would then say "let's score that 5.50 immediately and IF it is a regular > email it must 'prove' that fact by having 'positive' points like known_mua or > what have you.
There are few rules with negative scores in the default set, with good reason -- it's easy for spammers to start using them. That's why the MUA tests have essentially disappeared. If you want to score "vicodin" as 5.5, you have that ability, but it seems better for the default values to be based on methodical analysis of actual mail rather than on your personal guesses about what words are reasonable to have in spam and nonspam mail. I have a custom rule for "vicodin" and other drug names, but I haven't scored it 5.5. It is rare for spam to trigger only one rule, so a few points are enough. -- Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington, DC ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
