Hello Joe,
Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 8:31:43 AM, you wrote:
JK On another server or two I have disabled the auto white-list. Is
JK this acceptable practice? Now that I am into this I recall seeing
JK this issue before and thus decided to disable it. Comments on this
JK practice?
My personal
Reference header text below 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list why is something in the auto whitelist scoring positive? Shouldn't this be adding negative points?
Thanks,
Joe Kletch
---
X-AOL-IP: 205.188.162.5
X-Spam-Prev-Subject: Breakfast menu card
X-Spam-Flag: YES
Joe Kletch said:
Reference header text below 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto
white-list why is something in the auto whitelist scoring positive?
Shouldn't this be adding negative points?
Thanks,
Joe Kletch
* 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Hi Joe,
Check out
Joe Kletch wrote:
Reference header text below 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto
white-list why is something in the auto whitelist scoring positive?
Shouldn't this be adding negative points?
First, despite it's name the AWL's behavior is NOT limited to being a
whitelist.
It's a score
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Matt Yackley wrote:
* 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
Hi Joe,
Check out http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay
Thanks--that makes sense. Fighting false positives for a high-strung
sales organization is quite a challenge these days.
Matt Yackley wrote:
J
--matt gonna see if I can post this faster than Matt K.
Damnit!! You beat me to a post in my favorite topic :)
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Joe Kletch wrote:
Reference header text below 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto
white-list why is something in the auto whitelist scoring positive?
Shouldn't this be adding negative points?
First, despite it's name the AWL's behavior is NOT
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Matt Yackley wrote:
Joe Kletch said:
Reference header text below 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto
white-list why is something in the auto whitelist scoring positive?
Shouldn't this be adding negative points?
Thanks,
Joe Kletch
* 3.7 AWL AWL: From: address is
Joe Kletch wrote:
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Off color Jokes are rampant in this organization from the CEO down.
I'm sure the auto-learn dbs are quite confused. I'll probably raise
the threshold and keep requesting header of FPs.
Really, off-color jokes shouldn't
Joe Kletch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/26/2005
10:31:43 AM:
[snip]
On another server or two I have disabled the auto white-list. Is this
acceptable practice? Now that I am into this I recall seeing this
issue
before and thus decided to disable it. Comments on this practice?
Joe
Joe Kletch wrote:
Thinking I should check the auto white-list I looked for the tools on
my FreeBSD 5.3 box running SA 3.02 and no tools exist. Nothing in the
ports tree--so I loaded the RPM port and then set to load the RPM
Package, however it complained about a bunch of missing dependencies
11 matches
Mail list logo