-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Robert Menschel writes: > 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.) Bob -- don't forget that the AWL isn't that naive -- it includes the IP addresses that originated the mail as part of the "sender address" field, so spoofing isn't as simple as using the same email addr in the From field... > 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. You might as well blacklist_to those, that's what I do ;) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBKPY5QTcbUG5Y7woRAn+eAKDsW742C6TNKvqwcN50Hl9ZdvZ0pQCguH5A aJVY9xbjZ7ii8Ib+lVk9Q3k= =wpGa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
