On 18/12/2009 1:11 AM, Christian Brel wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:51:35 -0500 > "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <spamassas...@dostech.ca> wrote: > > >> I think the current score changes are a good step. Another step may >> be including in the release notes that there are whitelists and that >> people may want to disable them by score whatever rules (a list of >> them) 0. > > Why not default them to zero and include in the release notes/man that > there are whitelists and they can *enable* them?
I'm pretty sure I brought up the SA developers' *long* standing principle of being as safe as possible for the majority of users by erring on the side of missing spam rather than tagging ham while still putting out a useful product. >From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small amount on the side of caution by not disabling the whitelists by default. If we had more mass-check data from a wider number of mail recipients maybe it would change things, statistically, maybe it wouldn't. New mass-check contributors are always welcome. They take very little effort to manage once you've set it up (I ignore mine for years at a time). Daryl
