> This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
> same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
> scoring between 30 and 40. I'm really unsophisticated compared to you
> guys, and it begs the question––what am I doing wrong? All I use is a
> tweaked user_prefs wherein I have gradually raised the scores on
> standard rules found in spam that slips through over a period of
> time. These particular spams are over the top on bayesian (1.0), have
> multiple database hits, forged rcvd_helo and so forth. Bayesian alone
> flags them for me. I'm trying to understand the reason you would not
> want to have these type of rules set high enough? I must be way over
> optimized––what am I not getting?
The danger with tweaking standard rule scores you probably already know: you
are at least theoretically likely to get more false positives, because the
score set was optimized for the original scores.
Of course, everyone tweaks a few scores at least. After all, that is why
they are tweakable. As long as you watch you spam bucket for FPs you can go
pretty high on things. Looking at today's spam I only see one of these, but
it scored around 30. I have a bunch of the Re: news kind that all scored
35-39.
Loren
