In <20040805161137(_dot_)C46DB17109(_at_)mail(_dot_)nitros9(_dot_)org> "Alan
DeKok" <aland(_at_)ox(_dot_)org> writes:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> wrote:
Wether MARID encourage or discourages it will make no
difference. Scores of the various tests in SpamAssassin are not
determined by an human trying to guess wether "sex" should be more an
indication of spam than "viagra", or less. Scores are determined by
using the actual tests against a corpus of spam and a corpus of
ham. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/HowScoresAreAssigned.
I am saying that we know a-priori, that giving positive marks to
messages which pass SPF checks is not a good idea.
Your statement also appears to contradict Wayne's assertion about
Spamassassin.
In Spamassassin, the more postivie the score, the more spammy the
message was found. Giving a positive score for a pass from SPF is not
a good idea because an SPF pass is neither a sign of spam nor ham.
Failing an SPF check is a spam sign according to their genetic
alogrithm.
Stephane's statements do not controdict mine, other than I didn't
correct your confusion over negative vs positive scores. Stephane
explained *how* Spamassassin comes up with their numbers, I just
mentioned the result.
Do note that, at the present time, the scores of all SPF-related tests
are very low (probably reflecting the small number of SPF-enabled
domains). See http://spamassassin.apache.org/tests.html and search for
SPF.
Which has a "-0.001" for SPF_PASS, or marking the message as somehow
"better" for passing SPF.
As others have pointed out, this has no real effect, it only means
that the results gets put into the headers.
-wayne