>-----Original Message----- >From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:45 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: Default SURBL scores low? > > >On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:27:02AM -0700, Potato Chip wrote: >> -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. > >If you're getting ALL_TRUSTED hits on messages that came from >the outside >through a non-trusted server, then something it up there. The >reports I've >seen about it so far are related to something like an >anti-virus gateway not >adding in proper Received headers, passing the mail to SpamAssassin. > >> 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? > >SURBL is great, but it does get FPs. If you don't mind that (and the >possibility of having SA FP the mail into the "spam" >category), go ahead >and up the score. :)
Just a heads up, we are constantly working on reducing FPs. Everyday. It never ends. We think a lot has come from old data, and we are working on getting it cleaned out. The WS list will be the one to beat real soon ;) (Friendly competition about stats.) I personally score the WS list at 2.0 with no problems. --Chris
