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: > > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.0 required=5.0 > > > > IMO simply rounding towards zero using int would be better. I think > > most people understand rounding, this is a lot more disconcerting. > > > > None of this affects the result though, it's just what's displayed > > in the headers. > > Well thanks for the explanation, but your last statement there seems > not to really be true. > > I boosted the default 1.9 of URIBL_JP_SURBL score to 4 and something > else had a score of 1 but still it was ruled ham with score 4.9, > instead of 5 which would have made it spam. In the scoreset you are using SPF_SOFTFAIL has a score of 0.972 which gets rounded to 1.0 in the header.
