http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-25 12:01 ------- I understand the reason behind it. Though in practice, it causes a shit load of false negatives. All that spam which aren't recognized by any network test (RBLs) will pass as ham because the BAYES_xx is not high enough!!! With SA 2.6x all those emails would only hit the BAYES_99 rule and would be marked as spam, quite effectively. Now that i've re-set the scores as they had been in SA 2.6x, i no longer get ham that should have been marked as spam with a single BAYES_99 rule. I'd advise against this 'dynamic scoring'. Its nice in theory only. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
