I try not to second guess SA's default scores. I understand some work goes into creating those default scores.
However, I noticed after upgrading that many spams that are tagged with SURBL checks are still scoring below threshold. Some reasons contributing to the lower score, as I see it are: -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Most of these unmarked spams hit ALL_TRUSTED with a default score of -3.3. It almost completely discounts the SURBL score hits. 50_scores.cf:score URIBL_AB_SURBL 0 2.007 0 0.417 50_scores.cf:score URIBL_OB_SURBL 0 1.996 0 3.213 50_scores.cf:score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0 0.839 0 2.000 50_scores.cf:score URIBL_SC_SURBL 0 3.897 0 4.263 50_scores.cf:score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0 0.539 0 1.462 The default scores for SURBL hits seem low, especially when compared with what is recommended on www.surbl.org. Here is a sample log entry of a SURBL hit which is marked as clean: Oct 14 09:05:59 dgate spamd[8771]: clean message (1.0/5.0) for steve:1026 in 0.2 seconds, 7805 bytes. Oct 14 09:05:59 dgate spamd[8771]: result: . 1 - ALL_TRUSTED,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL,HTML_60_70,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_LINK _PUSH_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL scantime=0.2,size=7805,mid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,autolearn=n o Have most people changed the default SURBL scores to something more meaningful, higher? It seems worthy of a higher score given the great reviews that SURBL has been getting? Thanks for the info. Jae
