RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB

[Ronan McGlue <r....@qub.ac.uk>]

why is the weighting for RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB scores 0 0 0 then 0.007...

I know there is probably a good reason for this low a score but could 
someone explain it to me please as I have one very irate user who likes 
nothing better than to pick holes in spamassassin, which in turn is a 
headache for me. apparently 1 spam every week is still not good enought 
protection for him.

thanks

ronan

Re: RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

Ronan McGlue wrote:

> why is the weighting for RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB scores 0 0 0 then 0.007...
>
> I know there is probably a good reason for this low a score but could
> someone explain it to me please as I have one very irate user who
> likes nothing better than to pick holes in spamassassin, which in turn
> is a headache for me. 


Looking at statistics.txt it's got a low overall hitrate, and while it's
S/O is fairly good, it does in fact hit some nonspam.

Without combing the entire mass-check results of the corpus, it would be
impossible to determine the cause. However, I suspect that those few
nonspams were also being hit by other rules and the perceptron was
forced to compromise the score of this rule in order to avoid FPs.

Remember, SA's score evolver will accept 100 FN's before it will accept
1 FP. Which really is a good thing. FP's hurt, lots.. FN's are a
nuisance, but they don't cause loss of mail.

Since it's got that policy, the perceptron will try very hard to avoid
the FP. Even if it means letting some spam slip by, it's better than
tagging a bunch of legitimate mail.