Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of darxus@chaosreigns.com
 designates 64.71.152.40 as permitted sender)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:15:43 -0400
From: darxus@chaosreigns.com
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: BAYES_99 score
Message-ID: <20121022181543.GJ12261@chaosreigns.com>
References: <4266470F-DE37-4E92-96BB-1371BC345B08@jpkvideo.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4266470F-DE37-4E92-96BB-1371BC345B08@jpkvideo.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On 10/22, JP Kelly wrote:
> Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam?
> I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because BAYES_99 is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above the threshold.

You could.  Some people only use bayesian filtering, which would be
similar.  The important question is, how many false positives (non-spams
flagged as spams) would that cause?  SpamAssassin's automated scoring
attempts to achieve 1 false positive in 2,500 non-spams, with a score
threshold of 5.0.  So if you don't have an absolute minimum of 2,500
representative non-spams to check for having hit BAYES_99, you risk
increasing your false positives.  But it's your risk to take.

Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99?

-- 
"Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, then
he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet
copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'." - The Color of Magic
http://www.ChaosReigns.com