-----Original Message----- From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:10 AM To: Chris Santerre Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: Re: Why such a low score?
Chris,
What was the reason WS got such a low score in SA 3.0??? .5
is a joke! Hell
BigEvil was scored a 3 and now one complained, and it is the
same data!! I
don't understand. Did the mass check not go well?
We pointed this out several times, the mass checker found way too many FP's and so SA decided to score it lower. Its 'our own' problem, we have to get out those FP's. The scoring is done with SA 3.1 again, so lets try to do better there...
And yes, i am disappointed also with this very low scoring, personally i have raised it via my local.cf.
I am as well. I wonder when they did the testing. We have changed so much of WS to reduce FPs. And with the rates reported now, you can see why I was stunned to see this score. (I do vaguley remember a post from Theo or DQ about this.)
I'd love to know what a new GA run would say about this now.
--Chris