On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
..... 'just change the score' is not the correct answer.
the answer is totally correct.
No, it is not. No more than it is correct for a spammer to offer me a
(working) 'unsubscribe' link. I don't want to discover I've been letting
spam in the door and get complaints from users because of one (or more!)
'default' settings that are permitting spam.
The 'correct' answer that is being sought is to judge the entire
underlying 'policy' mechanism for spamassassin which results in the
*category* of choices about negative scores of which the habeas rule is
only ONE possible example!
The correct answer will be precisely why this state of affairs exists.
- because developers think/have thought its a good idea.
SLAP! Don't restate the question like its an answer. He asked for
reasoning behind the choice, not whether the developers *liked* their
choice. Of course they liked it. WHY did they like it?
- because nobody other than you makes such a noise about it.
There's a good point. Why *does* this person see so much spam with the
habeas rule in it? Which leads to the obvious corrolary, it seems likely
that the habeas rule got a negative score because it only appears in ham
in the SA 'master' test corpus. Why is THAT? What skews the messages
contents so badly? What is different between the two? Anyone thought to
sit down and question it?
I'm not even blindly accepting his assertions. I used to devalue habeas
back when it was the 'haiku' variety, but I haven't had a problem lately,
even without a special score. So why is there a problem for him?
- Charles
