https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6400
D. Stussy <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |software+spamassassin@kd6lv | |w.ampr.org --- Comment #28 from D. Stussy <[email protected]> 2011-12-06 23:24:47 UTC --- Policy Issue: The SA community should come up with a policy for addressing the addition of new features or expansion of such (like new DNSBLs and DNSWLs). I suggest that for the first period of time (1 month? 3 months? Whatever "masscheck" needs to assign a score?), the default score for any new rule be set to 0.001 (or -0.001 for whitelisting type functions). Such a policy should do these things: 1) Elimnate any bickering over what the initial score should be. 2) Give end users time to recognize that a new test has been installed. (And give them a chance for a local override score) 3) Allow any spam feedback system time to evaluate the usefulness of the rule. Some of this may already be done in the mass check system. However, that's by convention, not policy. A separate update channel with rules under consideration would be part of idea I'm setting forth. Along with this is a suggestion: A dynamic web page that picks up rules under testing (from the various sandboxes) and lists them, so all can see what is under consideration. If data regarding effectiveness is available, that too would be nice to see. Some have posted their personal stats with regard to their experience with the rule/DNSBL under consideration in this bug/feature request, but that's not quite the same as an automated system producing a combined result from multiple feedback points. In other words, perhaps SA needs a written, software-enforced policy and procedure to determine initial scores. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
