John Rudd wrote on Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:01:27 -0700:

> It's deliberately a 5.0 because the purpose is to flag all such messages
> for human review/quarantine (and there's a small assumption there that
> no rational human being is trashing or rejecting messages at a score in
> the range of 5 to 6, or even 5 to 10). Botnet isn't so much saying
> "This message is SPAM!!!", as it is saying "This message requires human
> review".

I see. My pov on quarantine is that as most as possible it should not need
human review. Clients should be bothered as few as possible. I don't reject
any spam, it's all put in the quarantine. If it scores between 5 and 6
users get a notice, if it is higher they don't.

Thanks for the insight on the statistics!

> 3) you can eliminate the false positives entirely by setting the score
> to 4.0, because all of the false positives we've come across were in the
> range 5.0 <= score < 6 (actually, smaller than 6, but definitely 6 works
> there).

That sounds good. Will try after I have some results on the 2.0 score.
"Unfortunately" I'm not getting much spam on my test machine that could get
hit by Botnet. Ahm, do you use any of the other "minor" rules with small
scores or do you keep them all at 0 as in the provided


Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: