https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6732
Darxus <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Darxus <[email protected]> 2011-12-16 19:22:41 UTC --- Reply I posted to users@: After digging into this a bit, I believe your entire objection is to the default rule set not handling the 127.0.0.6 return code, used by the following lists? new.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 recent.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 old.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 escalations.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 The rule for that return code is commented out in the default rule set with this comment: # delist: $50 fee for RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, others have free retest on request Which seems likely to have resulted from this bug: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=2221 Lists returning the 127.0.0.6 code in the safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net agregate zone are: new.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net recent.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net escalations.dnsbl.sorbs.net new.spam is only hosts from the last 48 hours. recent.spam is hosts from the last 28 days. escalations doesn't seem to have a time limit. So it seems your statement that "The only spam listed in this 'safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net' contains spam of the last 24 hours" is incorrect. Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set. With the currently enabled default rules, there would be *no* difference if you changed from dnsbl.sorbs.net to safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net because we're not using the lists as an aggregate (we don't only have a RCVD_IN_SORBS rule), but have separate rules for each of the return codes. And there is no difference in what lists are providing which return codes between those two aggregate lists other than the 127.0.0.6 (spam) value (which is disabled). Also, I wouldn't say the 0 scores were done "because lot of people thought there were too much false positives". The scores are flagged as mutable, meaning optimal scores are generated daily using masscheck data. Related statistics can be seen here: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20111210&rule=%2Fsorbs RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL seems to have a decent hit rate for both spam and ham, so somehow the score generator just decided the most spams would be caught without exceeding 1 false positive in 2500 hams with that score. It's not always clear what exactly it's thinking. It could be, for example, that almost all of the spam hits from RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL overlapped with another blacklist, and the SORBS_DUL list caused more false positives than that other blacklist, so that other blacklist got a decent score, and SORBS_DUL didn't. But these scores do not come from the whims of humans. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
