https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #139 from Justin Mason <j...@jmason.org> 2009-10-27 15:00:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #137) > Sort-of deliberately. Initially I followed the idea in wiki RescoreMassCheck > section 4.2: 'comment out all "score" lines except for rules that you think > the scores are accurate like carefully-vetted net rules, or 0.001 > informational > rules' which made perfect sense to me, so I did it for 50_scores.cf, except > for a couple of rather obvious rules like _WHITELIST and similar, and the ones > clearly indicated as 'indicators' only in the surrounding comments, or set to > 0.001. Later I nailed a couple more. I followed a principle: when in doubt, > leave it floating, it can be fixed later if necessary. It gives some insight > into what GA 'thinks' about certain rules. That's true. It's good to hear it's not a bug in the masses scripts, anyway ;) > I think at least for some rules GA makes perfect sense, like RDNS_NONE > and RDNS_DYNAMIC. Yes, I agree, it's actually done a (surprisingly) good job with those. > For some of them the GA result is close to the manually > assigned score, or may indicate a need for reconsidering the assigned score. > But I agree that more may need re-fixing. cool. In particular, some of the DNSBLs and most of the DNSWLs are good to 'lock down', I feel, as users tend to 'compensate' or correct their scores more frequently than other rules -- in my opinion. Also, if those are given low scores by the GA, their operators tend to be annoyed, and it's not good to annoy people who we're relying on ;) It also reflects that those rules are slightly different, and hopefully more reliable, than a typical body rule for example -- there's no way to indicate this to the GA yet, so locking the rules is as good as we can do. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
