On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/12/2011 4:56 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Warren Togami Jr.<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> * Was setting these scores manually your response to my concerns about >>> "reuse" and the difficulties we will face in GA rescoring? I might >>> even agree with this solution, although I believe it can be refined >>> with further discussion. >> >> Such high static scores don't leave much room for the GA rescoring to >> balance the other DNSBL scores. We would have have better >> statistics-driven results if we let Mailspike's rules float, do GA >> rescoring, manually adjust the results, then compare the before and >> after fp-fn ratios to be sure it is sane. > > My experience with other RBLs has shown that masscheck is too conservative > with them but I welcome stastistic driven scoring. However, my scores are > based on real-world implementations with those scores in testing since at > least July. > > What I don't want, however, is paralysis waiting for other things to drive > the inclusion. 3.4.0 is the time to consider the inclusion of MAILSPIKE. > Refining the scores from there can be done at anytime. > > Can you propose changes to the static scoring based on your expertise now > that moves MAILSPIKE to inclusion and then open a new ticket to refine the > scores and scoring system perhaps?
My proposal that you replied to does not suggest delay of Mailspike inclusion. I am only suggesting letting the scores balance naturally then adjusting it manually afterward. I did something similar when we included PSBL in 3.3.0. Not difficult. Warren
