Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <482B3769.8070904@clarku.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:03:05 -0400
From: Aaron Bennett <abennett@clarku.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "users@spamassassin.apache.org" <users@spamassassin.apache.org>
Subject: Re: VBounce ruleset
References: <482AFAFF.8080102@clarku.edu> <1210780218.25095.6.camel@monkey>
In-Reply-To: <1210780218.25095.6.camel@monkey>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Karsten Br�ckelmann wrote:
>
> Please check the recent archives for threads
> about the VBounce plugin or backscatter.
>
>   
I apologize for not doing that... however, had I, I would have still 
asked the question because the advice given is not suitable for an 
enterprise deployment:
> # If you use this, set up procmail or your mail app to spot the
> # "ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE" rule hits in the X-Spam-Status line, and move
> # messages that match that to a 'vbounce' folder.
>
>   
If you read further you'll see that you didn't answer my original 
question....
>   
>> My question is to people who've been using the rules in a real
>> production environment -- do you see them working with the default
>> scores, or have you tweaked them at all?
>>     
>
>   

Using procmail or a client side filter to file spam based on an 
X-Spam-Status line is not appropriate for a large, or even moderately 
large, end-user focused deployment -- that's why I asked if others are 
altering the default scores.

Again, a thousand apologies for making you repeat yourself.

That all being said...

Is anyone using these rules for spam detection?  If so, how have you 
been scoring them?  I'm glad to have a confirmation that 0.1 is 
obviously not enough but I'm curious how others are scoring these rules; 
given a general spam target of 5.  I'm thinking of scoring in the range 
of 1.5 - 2...

Best,

Aaron Bennett