https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6048
--- Comment #18 from AXB <[email protected]> 2009-01-22 05:31:07 PST --- (In reply to comment #17) > (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. Yep.. that was was I (mis)understood. > That is not the case, and if it has any nonzero > score, it should be positive to make the situation more visible. Which is the point/desired effect. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
