https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247
--- Comment #14 from AXB <[email protected]> 2009-12-04 15:30:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Furthermore, I've never been comfortable with such high artificial negative > scores like -4 through -8 for any whitelist. I think we should be more > conservative and halve such numbers. > > Could you also explain, the former SOI list, does this really mean you expect > us to assign negative scores to lists that are single opt in? Does single opt > in mean people who have put their e-mail address into a form, without e-mail > confirmation for subscription? > > Please explain how the old rules map to the new rules. Warren, Its pretty obvious that such high negative scores are supposed to override possible SBL/URI listings. imo, if we cannot get rid of all the negative scores settle for something closer to CERTIFIED = 0.0001 (informational) SAFE = -2.5 score RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL 5.0 without thoroughly testing and a clear policy??? -1 -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
