RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> 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 for URIBL_JP_SURBL >> 1.0 is shown for SPF_SOFTFAIL >> >> So what happened..? in one case a point (.1) is dropped and in the >> other it is not. > > It's odd that 2 people should notice this almost simultaneouly when it's > been around for years (see "Score = 4.9" ) > > 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: No, score=5.0 required=5.0 > > IMO simply rounding towards zero using int would be better. I think most > people understand rounding, this is a lot more disconcerting. > > None of this affects the result though, it's just what's displayed in > the headers. Well thanks for the explanation, but your last statement there seems not to really be true. I boosted the default 1.9 of URIBL_JP_SURBL score to 4 and something else had a score of 1 but still it was ruled ham with score 4.9, instead of 5 which would have made it spam. So there must be some tiny percentage of mail that gets wrongly sent thru as ham due to the problem you outlined. So, not just a matter of what is displayed in headers.
