https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #137 from Mark Martinec <[email protected]> 2009-10-27 14:18:14 UTC --- > > it looks like there might be a bit of a problem there -- definitely some > > rules that are in immutable sections, like the above, have been allowed > > to be mutable in ranges.data.... > > just wondering, Mark, did you do this deliberately? or is it just a bug > in the tool that it's ignoring the non-mutable flag for those rules for > some reason? Sort-of deliberately. Initially I followed the idea in wiki RescoreMassCheck section 4.2: 'comment out all "score" lines except for rules that you think the scores are accurate like carefully-vetted net rules, or 0.001 informational rules' which made perfect sense to me, so I did it for 50_scores.cf, except for a couple of rather obvious rules like _WHITELIST and similar, and the ones clearly indicated as 'indicators' only in the surrounding comments, or set to 0.001. Later I nailed a couple more. I followed a principle: when in doubt, leave it floating, it can be fixed later if necessary. It gives some insight into what GA 'thinks' about certain rules. I think at least for some rules GA makes perfect sense, like RDNS_NONE and RDNS_DYNAMIC. For some of them the GA result is close to the manually assigned score, or may indicate a need for reconsidering the assigned score. But I agree that more may need re-fixing. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
