https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #23 from Warren Togami <[email protected]> 2011-12-12 19:30:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > Should this be removed from the sandbox / masscheck? Maybe test it out again > in another year? Or is it worth continuing to test? > ( trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/smf/30_bug_6220_sem.cf ) One benefit to keeping mediocre rules in the sandbox is to confirm that they really are still bad every few months. Prior to my keeping track of safety ratings, admins everywhere just went by gut feelings when choosing which non-default DNSBL's to add to their MTA or Spamassassin. They would often do so without the knowledge that the DNSBL they are adding is 30% the size of PBL, yet overlaps with PBL 90% of the time and somehow has more FP's. Or in the case of UCEPROTECT people had NO IDEA how unsafe it was until we identified its high overlap with other quality rules. Keeping them in weekly masscheck also gives them a chance to redeem themselves in the future. Is it hurting us to keep it in weekly masscheck? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
