* Bob George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:02:25:20:27:00-0700] scribed: > "Michael D Schleif" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, I am probably going to turn OFF AWL for my environment, because > > it is becoming clear to me that the value added is not enough to > > warrant it. > > Is this a personal, or multi-user system you're running? I'm > curious how a mailing list address wound up with SUCH a negative > score, unless you specifically whitelisted it.
Yesterday, I received 414 messages from debian mailing lists. By far, the most voluminous is debian-user. Plus, debian lists are targets for spammers -- I do not understand the rationale; but, I have quite the corpus from those lists. Worse, I have other mailing list examples. > > When I do this, I will no longer have _any_ AWL scores in > > subsequent messages? I do not need to do `spamassassin -R' on a > > corpus of mail? > > I did some quick testing after your previous message, and AWL > scores STILL showed after doing > both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and -R on list > messages, calling spamassassin without -a. I'm not sure how to GET > RID of existing AWL scores! I'd be interested in hearing from > anyone who has myself. Yes, I know. All those (apparently) do are zero out the current AWL, then build again. I have turned OFF AWL completely, and have already noticed that AWL negative scores have positive counterparts. Now, lack of those positive AWL scores are increasing my grey-area scores (5 - 6). What do you think? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
