>-----Original Message----- >From: Johann Spies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 2:20 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Less spam blocked with 3.02 - AWL-related? > > >I have upgraded spamassassin on three mail (2.63 -> 3.02 on two and >2.64 -> 3.02 on the other) servers about two weeks ago. > >On the old system I have disabled AWL and Auto-learn because they >corrupted my bayesian database on at least one occasion. > >I have decided to try out AWL with 3.02. > >At first I did not use any extra rules but installed the following >after a week: > >70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf >70_sare_html2.cf >99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf >70_sare_html0.cf >70_sare_html3.cf >evilnumbers.cf >70_sare_html1.cf >70_sare_html_eng.cf > >I have experienced less false positives with the new one. Complaints >came down from about 6 per week to maybe 1 in the last two weeks. > >But the feedback from users about spam received increased and the >following statistics shows that something is not working as >effectively as it was previously: > >Average spam blocked per minute for the last > > Day Week Month Year (Since April-June last year) >mail1 5.94 6.21 7.67 8.20 >mail2 5.04 5.95 6.48 6.69 >mail3 4.95 4.67* 6.23 6.85 > >* mail3 was down for a few hours during the week. > >The three servers started out with the same bayesian database and are >trained with the same spam/ham on a nearly daily basis. > > >I am suspecting AWL to be the culprit but I am not sure how to >determine it other than switching it of for a period. > >Any commentary?
1) Nice rulesets ;) 2) Please tell me you are using net-tests. SURBL? (might want to increase those scores.) 3) Stop using AWL. Seriously, I found it did more harm then good and got big too fast. 4) Can you share the output from a --lint with us? --Chris
