On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 00:59 +0100, RW wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400 Harry Putnam wrote:
The real reason for what you're observing here is (as RW pointed out in
a follow-up post), that SPF_SOFTFAIL has a score of 0.972 -- that, and
you looking at the rounded scores in the brief
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:12:03 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I assume he knows about all that. Yet, being confronted with the
initial mystery of 4.9 vs 5.0 and a sneaky spam refusing to cross
that all-magic threshold, he seems to have forgotten about rounding.
If you reread the original
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding
towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it
becomes more complicated if one needs to handle threholds close to, or
below, zero and
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:20:41 -0400
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding
towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it
becomes more complicated if
SA is letting mail thru as ham that should be spam apparently based on
what is too low a score (for my mail) for URIBL_JP_SURBL which was
1.9 by default.
I pushed it up to 4.
But then I see a report that shows a total score of 4.9 when
4.0 is shown for URIBL_JP_SURBL
1.0 is shown for
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400
Harry Putnam wrote:
SA is letting mail thru as ham that should be spam apparently based on
what is too low a score (for my mail) for URIBL_JP_SURBL which was
1.9 by default.
I pushed it up to 4.
But then I see a report that shows a total score of 4.9
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400
Harry Putnam wrote:
[...]
I assumed it had something to do with rounding or something so I
increased the score to 4.1 to get that message to break the spam level
of 5.
Now the same mail shows a total of 5.1
4.1
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:15:46 -0400
Harry Putnam wrote:
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes:
I had a look into it, and it seems that rounding is handled in an
unusual way. It starts by rounding to the nearest 0.1, and then
subtracts 0.1 if the result is non-spam to avoid the case of:
