http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4157
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-25 17:31 ------- I understand that the effect is not as drastic as a bounce, and I agree that a temp fail penalty box can be a great idea -- especially since spam senders usually do not retry temp fails. The problem is that you can't count on a high score really meaning that some piece of mail is spam when individual users are able to set their own preferences. They can blacklist anyone they choose, they can assign high scores to rules that would FP for everyone else, they can even rescore everything and set their spam threshold to 100 if they feel like it. The only way this could work without making it vulnerable to individual user preferences is to have some mechanism to keep track of rule hits and scores using the default scoring. To do that, you would have to deal with the problem that assigning a rule a score of 0 now means that the rule is never run. That's a problem with Tom's suggestion of keeping two running totals. I'm not saying that the idea is not feasible, but I'm raising issues that I think an implementation would need to address if it is going to be practical. I agree that the goal of finding a way to temporarily temp fail likely spam senders is a good one. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
