>>[all sipped]
>
>
>Since you mentioned the scores, please note the Bobby Rose, the original
>poster of this issue had modified the score for URIBL_SBL from its
>defaults to 10 ...
>
>I had suggested that he reduce the score (possibly setting it back to
>the defaults)
>
>While it doesn't negate the issues surrounding the way the URI lookups
>work (or should possibly work) ... it's obvious that there is enough FP
>potential to warrant not scoring it so high.
>
>alan
>
I think you are quite correct. If you want to have a high weight
on the SBL, use it as a RBL at the SMTP level (I do). I think its score
once a message hits SA is already correct given the extreme overlap with
other hit rules (I have lots of filtering before that - SA is my last line
of defense and seems almost impenetrable). Even my own local rules generally
have very low scores - only two score above 1.5 and only 5 score above .6,
out of about 25 local rules. As best I can tell, the default scoring is
very well adjusted already.
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
