Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 6/24/10 1:18 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Yet spamassassin scores it with a .9. I have been reluctant to
block and
this is compounded by spamassassin scoring it low as if it weren't as
accurate as you state.
again, look at the circumstances. the SA scoring might be crippled due
to the issue of a lack of these ip's in spam corpus since most people
use that as a hard mta rbl.
(chime in, anyone who uses it)
I use PBL to block at the MTA level. I agree the FP rate is near
non-existent. So long as you're *only* scanning the --lastexternal IP in
SA then I'd personally score the rule well above the spam threshold level.
Interesting what Michael says about the reason for a low score in SA. I
don't know enough about the weighting of the scoring system, but it
sounds like a reasonable argument to me to explain the low scoring. If
you're not convinced, grep your own inbox for hits against PBL for FPs.
The danger comes when people use the PBL incorrectly and deep parse all
headers which *will* lead to copious FPs.
Either way, I'd have no hesitation blocking outright on PBL or scoring
very highly in SA.
