> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:12 PM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: My only problem with URIBL_BLACK
>
>
> Chris Santerre wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I've scored GREY at 0.1 as an informational rule. It's S/O is
> >> so poor it is more
> >> qualified to be a nonspam rule. ( 0.354 in the nightly
> >> mass-check Theo posted)
> >
> > Thats actually perfect. Exactly what it was designed to be :)
> >
> > Had it been around .8xx I would have been worried. I don't
> expect that
> > to ever be over .55 at most.
> >
>
> Then why is the suggested score on uribl.com 0.25 for this list?
>
> http://www.uribl.com/usage.shtml
>
> If you're expecting the S/O to be that low it should be very
> near or below 0.
>
> (I'm going to revise my own config to 0.001 for this one)
Cause if there are other rules that fire, then this might just be a SPAM that is using a greyhats URL. So adding that slight little bit to score, may be just the nudge it needed to get pushed over the score limit.
But if it is a ham, and no other larger spam scores hit, then its score of .25 is insignifigant.
I think of these rules as herbs and spices. Adds just a bit of flavor, but doesn't take away from the flavor of the key ingredient. Spam or Ham :)
--Chris
