Am 22.07.2015 um 14:18 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:40:12 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam shortcircuit BAYES_00 hamOn 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the only decision in a scoring system, it's one component that said from someone scoring BAYES_999 with 7.9 while milter-reject is 8.0 - the other rules are there to avoid false-positives and false-negatives for a good reasonSo THIS explains, why you blame (us) for every single low-scoring rule for hitting something you don't like!It really doesn't if you think about it. What does explain it is his increased score for BAYES_50, and an increase in some non-Bayes scores
which don't change the fact that in cases a rule hits more ham than spam or around 50% in both directions questions about it are legit
but that's a completly differnet topic
however, for the OP it is another reason not even to score high on BAYES_*YMMV but personally I've never had a single ham hit BAYES_99. There's currently no evidence to suggest that the OP would have any problem with short-circuiting on it
well, if someone would read the manuals before talk about "score high on BAYES_*" he would know that is does *not* matter at all in the context of the OP because BAYES_99 would lead in 100 points and BAYES_00 in -100 points by skip all other non-dns rules and so BAYES_00 and BAYES_999 becomes the final result
https://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.4.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_Shortcircuit.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
