https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6579
--- Comment #9 from Theo Van Dinter <[email protected]> 2011-07-01 18:07:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > In general, this is the point for HAM rules that score negative. However, > just > because something has valid SPF or DKIM, doesn't mean it isn't spam. Yep. > In fact, I remember an old statistic that David Skoll with MIMEDefang > mentioned > that he saw this being adopted far quicker by the spammers ;-) Back in the 2.5 timeframe, we tried having a number of ham rules w/ good negative values. Sure enough, spammers adapted in order to his those rules. We had to pull all of them out. > What we need to do to solve this problem is get more legit examples of the > email into the masscheck so that the system will score the rule lower because > it hits on HAM by accident. +1 > Looking at the overall rule, though, this rule is very prone to misfires and > needs to be capped on scoring ASAP. > > Theo, did you intend META all to be the only rule or did you mean to let > TVD_PH_SUBJ_ACCOUNTS_POST be scored? I can't tell you what I was thinking at the time ... I wrote these rules a long time ago. :) My guess is that I was throwing things at the wall and seeing what would stick. :) As actual rules, versus subrules, the ones that did well would get promoted and the ones that didn't would just stay in the sandbox. The meta was probably an attempt to deal with FPs for some of the individual rules. Looking at a recent STATISTICS* file, it looks like : 0.099 0.1420 0.0083 0.945 0.68 0.00 TVD_PH_SUBJ_ACCOUNTS_POST So overall, that's pretty good. Can those ham hits be checked out? If they're FPs, can the rule be modified to avoid them w/out significantly dropping the spam hit rate? > Can you add something like this to your sandbox file ASAP? [...] > Or change to be subrules and add a max score you feel comfortable with to the > meta rule? I'm not really in a position to do rule development at this point, so I would say go ahead and make any changes that you feel are necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
