On 2011-12-12 23:26, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/12/2011 5:23 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Kevin A. McGrail<[email protected]>
wrote:
* Did you really intend for Mailspike to add a total of 4.1 or 4.5
points? (Given _BL is a composite rule that adds 1.0 on top of _L5 or
_ZBI.)
Yes, I did.
Every time _L5 hits you have 4.1 points. Every time _ZBI hits you
have 4.5 points. This comes pretty close to exclusively trusting only
Mailspike. Mailspike we know is good, but does it really deserve a
static score this high? Has the Perceptron/GA balancing ever set any
DNSBL this high?
Does this really make sense?
Based on real-world usage with no real-world FPs, I would argue yes or I
wouldn't have proposed the scores to begin with.
4.x for a new RBL score is scary... especially comparing with
RCVD_IN_SBL / RCVD_IN_XBL or even RCVD_IN_CSS whichis highly reliable
I'll put Mailspike to production (with low scores) as soon as I can get
my rsync stuff setup with João
