SP scoring

[Peter Bonivart]

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Matt Kettler wrote:
> 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.

No, it's the standard scores for bayes+network, A is just network
without bayes. Both A and B look standard to me.

This is from one of my installations, it's the same as on the SA web site.

score URIBL_AB_SURBL 0 2.007 0 0.417
score URIBL_OB_SURBL 0 1.996 0 3.213
score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0 0.839 0 2.000
score URIBL_SBL 0 0.629 0 0.996
score URIBL_SC_SURBL 0 3.897 0 4.263
score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0 0.539 0 1.462

--
/Peter Bonivart

--Unix lovers do it in the Sun

------------------------ 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!