Re: URIBL_PH_SURBL

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
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk/rules/50_scores.cf
> (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. :(

Cheers,

Jeff C.
-- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

• This message: [ Message body ]
• Next message: RW: "Re: Why not trust that header? And ALL_TRUSTED wrong?"
• Previous message: Kris Deugau: "Re: matching headers/body of rfc822 attachment"
• In reply to: darxus_at_nospam: "Re: URIBL_PH_SURBL"

• Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]