Nevermind. I found it in the list archives.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Grewell > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:03 PM > To: Aaron Grewell; users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Understanding the AWL (was Upgrade to 3.0.1 results > in false positives) > > Thanks to Mark Martinec on the amavisd-new list I've managed > to narrow this down to my comcast address being assigned > about 18 points by the AWL. Now I just have to figure out > why. I read the (not very expansive) POD docs on the AWL, > and it's clear that I don't really understand how it works. > Why doesn't it like my address? Also, why does it like me so > much less under 3.0.1 than it did under 2.64? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aaron Grewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 1:55 PM > > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > > Subject: Upgrade to 3.0.1 results in false positives > > > > I've been using SA 2.6x to block spam at our site for some > time. With > > the release of 3.0.1 I decided to upgrade. > > Unfortunately, once the upgrade was complete I found that my test > > e-mails were marked as spam. I also received several false > positives > > from end-users as well. I could understand some of the > FP's, but when > > a simple test mail (subject "test test" body "test test") is marked > > I'm in trouble. The test I sent was from my Comcast account, and > > ended up with the following header: > > > > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.8 tagged_above=2.0 required=3.0 > tests=AWL, > > BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS, NO_REAL_NAME, > > RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO > > > > I added up the scores for these rules, and they didn't seem > to add up > > to 17.anything. I'm using a Postfix MTA setup with Amavisd-new to > > call SA, and the only thing that has changed is SA so I don't think > > this is due to Amavisd-new. Why would a simple test mail from my > > Comcast account generate this? > >