On 4/17/2014 9:14 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >> it's not corrected, that's the point... >> > The scoring occurs from automatic corpus checks. The best way to help > the rule score better is to help with masscheck. >
It's not really a good indicator of spam/ham here either. A moderate amount of spam is being marked as ham due to that rule's weight. This rule was discussed back in Oct/Nov 2013, after which the rule was manually set to -0.001. And it stayed that way until at least Feb 28th of this year. Then during the first few weeks of March 2014, someone converted it to a T_ rule before re-releasing it. (Hopefully next month I can help out with the mass-check.)
