Hello Daniel, Saturday, August 21, 2004, 12:19:07 PM, you wrote:
>> (IMO, [AWL] should be off by default to maintain consistency with past >> versions, but it's not) DQ> Yeah, that would be more consistent, but my inclination is that we DQ> should put our best foot forward by default and the AWL *does* improve DQ> accuracy. Of course, the AWL algorithm could be better (adding a decay DQ> is on my list of things to try). Daniel, My primary hesitation with AWL has to do with spoofing -- we get too many spams "from" one of our domain addresses "to" another. I'm concerned that these will lead AWL to be incorrect wrt our domains. (Since our email runs on shared web servers, ALL email except webmail comes from external sources, even those I send to others within our domain.) Would it be appropriate for me to but in a bugzilla request for something like the following parameters that would enable us to turn off AWL processing for specific addresses or domains? If we had that capability, then I'd have no problem using AWL here. > awl_exclude_address address-to-exclude > awl_exclude_domain domain-to-exclude and then, since there are bogus addresses that have been harvested and which are guaranteed to be spam, > awk_include_address address-to-include would be beneficial to always flag those as spam. Bob Menschel
