On 2/20/2014 1:31 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to
have said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more
points to BAYES_99 for the very top end of Bayes score.
If you have locally set a high score for BAYES_999 you may want to
reduce
or remove that override. (Then again, BAYES_99 + BAYES_999 scoring 10+
isn't really *that* much of a problem unless your Bayes database is
off
the rails... :) )
This should go out within the next couple of rule updates.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Just as a note: This discussion went quite a bit further than this
mailing list, since the rule leak affected anyone using a recent
version of Spamassassin. I know for certain it reached NANOG, for
example. Given that there are likely people who've rescored the
BAYES_999 rule and will not see this decision, would it be possible
to release it as a *different* rule? (And retire BAYES_999
entirely.) Name it BAYES_99_9 or something, so that previous
quick-fixes don't affect people negatively? A surprise change to
over-score messages quickly following a surprise change to
under-score messages just hits me wrong. I'd be nice if we could
avoid causing more problems.
Daniel T. Staal
Wow. Ok.
Kevin: how about the BAYES_100 suggestion?
People have hard_coded BAYES_999 entries as well. I recommend
forwarding the announcement from John to the other mailing lists you are
aware of these discussions.
Regards,
KAM
