from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AE143F99
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:35:04 +0100 (IST)
from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
    [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g7TGYiZ20463 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:34:44 +0100
from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
    helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17kSF9-0001Qi-00; Thu,
    29 Aug 2002 09:34:03 -0700
from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]) by
    usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id
    17kSED-000405-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
    Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:33:05 -0700
from misery.proulx.com (misery.proulx.com [192.168.1.108]) by
    joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DF514B33 for
    <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:32:57 -0600
    (MDT)
by misery.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 72129A8369;
    Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:32:57 -0600 (MDT)
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Thu Aug 29 17:35:05 2002

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