https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6048
--- Comment #17 from Matt Kettler <[email protected]> 2009-01-22 05:25:28 PST --- (In reply to comment #14) > So it isn't clear that a really high score will get administrator attention > sufficiently quickly. If all mail being tagged doesn't get their attention quickly, I'm not sure what will. I can't think of anything SA can do that would get attention faster. Personally, this is also a lot better than the current situation, where merely "lots more than normal" gets tagged. That's a lot more subtle than a 100% cutoff. That tends to get attention rather slowly, and the problem could persist for weeks before being detected. Perhaps a score lower than 20 might be better, due to some folks doing auto-delete on high scores. However, my basic point is that the rule should not be scored negative or otherwise offset URIBL_BLACK. I suspect Alex believed I was suggesting a negative scoring compensation rule to avoid the mail being tagged. That is not the case, and if it has any nonzero score, it should be positive to make the situation more visible. >Better to disable queries to the list and proceed with > other SA tests, there are certainly enough other ones to fall back on. Disabling may be better, but it's not going to be easy to implement in SpamAssassin's architecture. Of course, patches welcome if you want to implement that solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
