On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to have
said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more
points to BAYES_99 for the very top end of Bayes score.
If you have locally set a high score for BAYES_999 you may want to reduce
or remove that override. (Then again, BAYES_99 + BAYES_999 scoring 10+
isn't really *that* much of a problem unless your Bayes database is off
the rails... :) )
This should go out within the next couple of rule updates.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Just as a note: This discussion went quite a bit further than this mailing
list, since the rule leak affected anyone using a recent version of
Spamassassin. I know for certain it reached NANOG, for example. Given that
there are likely people who've rescored the BAYES_999 rule and will not see
this decision, would it be possible to release it as a *different* rule? (And
retire BAYES_999 entirely.) Name it BAYES_99_9 or something, so that
previous quick-fixes don't affect people negatively? A surprise change to
over-score messages quickly following a surprise change to under-score
messages just hits me wrong. I'd be nice if we could avoid causing more
problems.
Daniel T. Staal
Wow. Ok.
Kevin: how about the BAYES_100 suggestion?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the place of government to make right every tragedy and
woe that befalls every resident of the nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 days until George Washington's 282nd Birthday
