from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7494743F99
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:13:52 -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 17:13:52 +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
    g7TG6VZ19509 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:06:32 +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 17kRlD-0003sE-00; Thu,
    29 Aug 2002 09:03:07 -0700
from [212.2.188.179] (helo=mandark.labs.netnoteinc.com) by
    usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id
    17kRl0-0005Kt-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
    Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:02:55 -0700
from phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com
    [192.168.2.14]) by mandark.labs.netnoteinc.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP
    id g7TG2l502639; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:02:47 +0100
by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id
    9E3C643F99; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993FA33D8F;
    Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:00:17 +0100 (IST)
Message from Bart Schaefer <schaefer@zanshin.com> of
    "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:32:08 PDT."
    <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208290714450.30051-100000@aztec.zanshin.com>
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Thu Aug 29 17:13:52 2002

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