> My environment is: SA-2.31, perl-5.6 running on NetBSD-1.6F.
Version 2.40-cvs (from today) on NetBSD/i386 1.5.2 (Athlon 1500):
Aug 29 17:55:53 silence spamd[2052]: processing message
Aug 29 17:57:10 silence spamd[2052]: clean message (2.5/5.0) for
Resident size about 75MB, according to top.

No, hits=-27.6 required=7.0
	tests=HABEAS_SWE,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
	version=2.40-cvs

Bart Schaefer said:
> This is off the topic of the rest of this discussion, but amavisd (in all
> its incarnations) and MIMEDefang and several other MTA plugins all reject
> at SMTP time messages that scores higher than some threshold (often 10).
argh, they do not, do they?   the FPs must be just gigantic :(
> If some new release were to start scoring all spam no higher than 5.1,
> there'd better be _zero_ FPs, because all those filters would drop their
> thresholds to 5.
Well, my point is more that we should aim our rescoring algorithm so that
a spam hits 5.0.    Any higher does us no good, as it means an FP is
a lot harder to recover from, using compensation rules.
Spams *will* hit higher than that -- that's just the way the scoring works.
but for our code to be effective, and spread the range of scores
correctly, we just have to optimise to hit 1 threshold.
--j.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk

No, hits=-15.5 required=7.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
	version=2.40-cvs

No, hits=-17.5 required=7.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,PGP_SIGNATURE_2,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,
	      TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
	version=2.40-cvs

Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org> [2002-08-29 17:00:12 +0100]:
> Well, my point is more that we should aim our rescoring algorithm so that
> a spam hits 5.0.    Any higher does us no good, as it means an FP is
> a lot harder to recover from, using compensation rules.
Agreed.
But I have always thought that the value 5 was not the best value.  It
should have been 0.  I understand that initially only spammy scores
were included.  But I believe the algorithm should be purely
symmetrical and non-spammy negative values should also have been
balancing out the spammy positive values, like they do in SA today.
Then anything that was positive would be spam and anything negative
would be non-spam.  (And I guess exactly zero is grey. :-) Today's
choice of 5 just adds an offset.  Which I think cause people to assume
things work differently than they do.
Bob