On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:20:41 -0400
David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100
> RW wrote:
>
> > It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding
> > towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it
> > becomes more complicated if one needs to handl
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:08:22 +0100
RW wrote:
> It is a bit more complicated than I thought though. Rounding
> towards zero produces sensible results for the 5.0 threshold, but it
> becomes more complicated if one needs to handle threholds close to, or
> below, zero and which aren't multiples of 0
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:12:03 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I assume he knows about all that. Yet, being confronted with the
> initial mystery of 4.9 vs 5.0 and a sneaky spam refusing to cross
> that all-magic threshold, he seems to have forgotten about rounding.
If you reread the original p
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 00:59 +0100, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400 Harry Putnam wrote:
The real reason for what you're observing here is (as RW pointed out in
a follow-up post), that SPF_SOFTFAIL has a score of 0.972 -- that, and
you looking at the rounded scores in the brief summar
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:15:46 -0400
Harry Putnam wrote:
> RW writes:
> > I had a look into it, and it seems that rounding is handled in an
> > unusual way. It starts by rounding to the nearest 0.1, and then
> > subtracts 0.1 if the result is non-spam to avoid the case of:
> >
> > X-Spam-Status: N
RW writes:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400
> Harry Putnam wrote:
[...]
>> I assumed it had something to do with rounding or something so I
>> increased the score to 4.1 to get that message to break the spam level
>> of 5.
>>
>> Now the same mail shows a total of 5.1
>>
>> 4.1 is shown fo
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:19:12 -0400
Harry Putnam wrote:
> SA is letting mail thru as ham that should be spam apparently based on
> what is too low a score (for my mail) for URIBL_JP_SURBL which was
> 1.9 by default.
>
> I pushed it up to 4.
>
> But then I see a report that shows a total score of
SA is letting mail thru as ham that should be spam apparently based on
what is too low a score (for my mail) for URIBL_JP_SURBL which was
1.9 by default.
I pushed it up to 4.
But then I see a report that shows a total score of 4.9 when
4.0 is shown for URIBL_JP_SURBL
1.0 is shown for SPF_SOFTFA
