|
Then likely some of those scores below
are -0.01 or something similar so they are bumping you JUST under
5.0
On 9/14/2013 12:29 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2013 at 10:47 AM, "Kevin A. McGrail"
<kmcgr...@pccc.com> wrote:
|
On 9/14/2013 7:24 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> I've been having various issues with changes to
local.cf not "taking".
>
> Seem to have resolved these, yet there is one more
issue that troubles. (mostly typos apparently, BTW)
>
> So today, after getting changes to BAYES weights to
"take", I found some SPAM gets thru anyway as the
> score come up short, in my arithmetic. 4.9 and not
5.0. Does it have to do with the "- " in front of some
tests?
>
> You will see below what I mean:
>
> -----
>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2
(2011-06-06) on open-122
> X-Spam-Level: ****
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.9 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE,
> SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no
version=3.3.2
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 5.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is
99 to 100%
> * [score: 1.0000]
> * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF
record
> * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in
message
> -----
Hi Joe,
It likely has to do with rounding. That 5.0 is likely a
4.999 or
something. So there is floor/ceiling silliness that
isn't really
apparent from the reports. I think there are also
scenarios where the
rounding / display is done differently and I unified
that code in the
trunk a year or so ago.
Regards,
KAM
|
Thanks. For now I just
changed the scores to n.1 just for fun.
joe a.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
President
Peregrine Computer Consultants Corporation
3927 Old Lee Highway, Suite 102-C
Fairfax, VA 22030-2422
http://www.pccc.com/
703-359-9700 x50 / 800-823-8402 (Toll-Free)
703-359-8451 (fax)
kmcgr...@pccc.com
|
