http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 19:25 ---
Responding to the last paragraph of Loren's comment:
The only reason for a reliability specifier is to give the perceptron a hint
when the actual data is in the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 20:46 ---
The proper place for discussion of a reliability test is in bug #3821, where it
is being discussed. I still think after reading it over again that if RFCI has
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-01 11:38 ---
Subject: Re: Consider removing RFCI tests from SA 3.0
I agree, my intention was to bring in front of the devs some possible
policy issues the maintainer of
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 03:54 ---
I will go away but I am sick of no one listening when I try to help reduce
false positives in this program. No one wants to listen or care that someone
might
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:18 ---
Fred, please don't be upset by that last comment by Matus UHLAR, he's not one
of the dev team and at least on my personal record you appear as one of the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:47 ---
Malte,
I took it wrong, I get hot when trying to help and no one wants to hear me or I
fail to make the point I was trying to make. That's why I spent some time
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 04:53 ---
It doesn't matter this was for 1.6 points or 1 million points, if someone
knows
about a test which is FPing I always thought it was right to put the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 07:30 ---
The HTML tests do not give an e-mail 1/3 of the required score to consider it
spam. 1.6 is 32% of 5.0, html tests which FP do not get scores like this.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 07:51 ---
We have all seen RBLs go down and list the world, say someone like XBL list
does this, now because of RFC's known FP, David's mail might score 4.69 now we
are
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 09:07 ---
Agreed with Bob. Fred - we've been partners in crime before g, so I think we
can speak frankly.
I agree that I've found the DESCRIPTIONS of policies at RFCI a
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 09:19 ---
I agree with you Mike Bell, no solid evidence yet, nothing to worry about. I
live in a world of what-ifs too much and need to drop this thinking when it
comes
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-30 09:55 ---
IIRC, we looked at this before -- the reason RFCI has a tendency to get a high
score, is because it's very good at hitting the spam other rules don't hit, so
the
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- You
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-29 11:38 ---
Needless to say, I also believe postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org should be removed
from the SpamAssassin rule sets.
--- You are receiving this mail because:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- You
16 matches
Mail list logo
