Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
To use your example, where 5 declares spam, why is the configuration
likely to set STRICT to 4 rather than 10 or 100, given the semantics
of Strict?
Why does this matter? It's an implementation detail. You only asked
whether people would use SSP that way. The answer is a resounding yes.
What an interesting perspective. The degree of weight that gets used
for this feature is merely an implementation detail, rather than a
fundamental test of the mechanism's utility.
I can't speak for Spamassassin, I'm not one of their developers
and I don't know the intricacies of how they choose values. It
appears that you're just trying to be argumentative here since
you've seemingly dismissed the larger point that anti-spam filters
rarely use individual pieces of information as a silver bullet.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html