http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3947
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-13 01:47 ------- Subject: Re: SPF failure scores too low [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > To me this suggests more a problem with the optimizer's setup than > evidence that the distributed SPF penalty numbers are plausible. How > can they be, given the fluidity of information with network queries? > No wonder I usually end up having to override a bunch of DNSBL scores > too. FWIW with my spam archive, SPF failure correlates well with > spam. Well, we want to move to using real-time data for network tests and that would improve the scores, but it's a non-trivial amount of work (to log complete network data in message headers, and then reuse it in mass-check). Patches accepted. :-) Nevertheless, SPF is not a super-great spam sign -- about 0.5% of ham fails in real-time and 8.5% of spam (on my mail stream). That's a S/O ratio of about 0.95 which is much worse than any good DNSBL. Daniel ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
