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

[Chris Santerre]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond at 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