spamassassin-users December 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-users archives
spamassassin-users: Re: URIBL_PH_SURBL


From: Jeff Chan <jeffc_at_nospam>
Date: Thu Dec 08 2011 - 15:24:37 GMT

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, 10:11:35 AM, Darxus Darxus wrote:
> On 12/01, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Also keep in mind that PH has a generally low score even for net
>> + bayes since it doesn't hit a large portion of spam in the SA
>> corpus.

> No. Scores are not determined by how many spams a rule hits. Scores are
> automatically generated to correctly flag as many spams as possible
> without exceeding 1 false positive in every 2500 hams (with a
> required_score of 5).

> Stated in
> (a file you get via sa-update)

> So it's entirely possible to have a rule that hits a very small percentage
> of spam with a very large score.

Thanks for the correction. I actually knew that but remembered
incorrectly. :(


Jeff C.
-- Jeff Chan