] at 172.1.1.1? If
it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] at 172.1.1.1, then AWL would be basically saying
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spammer which he's not.
-Original Message-
From: Lars Hansson [mailto:lars;unet.net.ph]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] AWL issue
On 19 Oct 2002, Lars Hansson moaned:
On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 01:22, Matt Kettler wrote:
if it's 2.43, the AWL tracks both the from address AND the orginating IP.
Uh, I do hope it's the IP that actually delivered the mesage to you that
is being tracked and not the originating one?
I hope it's
On a related issue, I just upgraded to 2.43 primarily because of the
earlier AWL problems.
My question is, how long will it take for the erroneous AWL entries
to work their way out of my AWL db?
Would I be better off deleting the AWL db and letting it start over?
Thanks,
Ollie
On Fri, Oct
.
-Original Message-
From: Ollie Acheson [mailto:oacheson;acheson.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 10:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] AWL issue
On a related issue, I just upgraded to 2.43 primarily because of the
earlier AWL problems.
My question is, how long
Should SA have a minimum message size check to counter an AWL score. I
had someone sending test messages, but because their AWL score was 23.5
it was tagged as spam. I'm still scratching my head on how they got
such a high AWL score.
My thought on that matter is that if a spammer was to send
What version of SA are we talking about?
if it's 2.43, the AWL tracks both the from address AND the orginating IP.
it would be highly unlikely that a spammer could forge such a thing and
drive their score up.
Can you provide some more detail about which SA you are running? there's
major
: Matt Kettler [mailto:mkettler;evi-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:23 PM
To: Rose, Bobby; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] AWL issue
What version of SA are we talking about?
if it's 2.43, the AWL tracks both the from address AND the orginating
IP.
it would be highly unlikely
