SP scoring

[Matt Kettler]

At 03:21 PM 2/3/2005, Magda Hewryk wrote:
>Anybody can answer why option A)is scored so low comparing to option B)?
>What I'm missing in the SA config that the scoring is so inaccurate?
>
>A)
>not spam, SpamAssassin (score=1.318, required 4.9, autolearn=disabled,
> > RAZOR2_CHECK 0.15, URIBL_SBL 0.63, URIBL_WS_SURBL 0.54)"
>
>vs.
>
>B)
>score=5.36, required 5, BAYES_00 -2.60, BIZ_TLD 2.29, URIBL_OB_SURBL 3.21,
>URIBL_SBL 1.00, URIBL_WS_SURBL 1.46

Looks like B) is using hand-edited non-standard scores for the SURBL
rules.. They are higher than any of the scoresets in the standard
distribution, thus must be custom.

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!