spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin A. McGrail" <>
Date Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:31:33 GMT
On 1/8/2013 11:27 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Ned Slider wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'd just like to note some FPs on AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_B054A hitting
>> some ham.
> Rules in this cluster seem to target "obsolete" versions of MSOE and its
> descendants.  See
> for some
> discussion around a similar rule.
> I can see the reasoning, but all too often ISP end users do not update
> their systems, ever, causing these to be seen in live legitimate traffic.

My $0.02.  Rules often will hit on Spam and Ham so a FP should really be 
something that causes a Spam or Ham to be categorized incorrectly as a 

For example, I may write a rule that scores 0.25 that hits on Spam but 
also some Ham.  But I also have rules that are negative to negate the 
Ham impact.

So if a score is particularly high on a single rule or it contributes to 
mismarking an email, it's a good thing to discuss. If it adds a small 
amount to a score, that's really not unexpected.

So when the rule misfires on the Ham, is the ham still being overall not 
marked as Spam?  Do you see a good amount of hits from the rule on Spam?


View raw message