https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6344
--- Comment #12 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #10) > I'd suggest that as a general practice _any_ DNS-based rule having a > negative score should have the "noautolearn" tflag set. It's not so much a > matter of mistrust as a recognition that a temporary mistake by the DNS > service could cause Bayes to go off the rails. Thanks btw for checking the noautolearn impacts Bayes learning. I missed that. I disagree with this. I continually keep circling back to the fact that rules should score appropriately with minimal false hits. That includes hammy rules. You are saying that negative DNS based tests should not impact bayes and I agree that this is more of a symptom. We should look at lowering the scores of those rules if they are rippling that badly. > > > Finally, the concept of not learning for the bayesian system based on > > certain rules hitting/not-hitting for production systems seems to have > > little merit to me. > > It's not so much that a DNSWL rule hit would suppress autolearning as, if > the message is _still hammy_ when DNSWL is not considered, it should be > autolearned. To me this implies a lack of trust in the rule efficacy and scoring that needs to be adjusted not the bayesian system. > So, +1 from me on the initial suggestion, plus review of other DNS-based > standard rules for the same change (which will be quick, I don't think many > reduce the score). I agree with Jason, "users can easily implement the rule > modifications in their site config" is not an appropriate response to this > particular case. Sorry, at best I'm 0 and I'm not going to stand in your way if you do the work, submit the code and follow-up on it with some analysis. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
