[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Why such a low score?

Raymond Dijkxhoorn raymond at prolocation.net
Wed Sep 29 17:10:03 CEST 2004


> 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.


More information about the Discuss mailing list