Matt Kettler a écrit : > mouss wrote: >> Matt Kettler a écrit : >> >>> Brian J. Murrell wrote: >>> >>>> If I get a spam and I need to have SA learn that it's spam with >>>> sa-learn, wouldn't it be useful to also skew the AWL for that sender so >>>> that future uses of the AWL for that spammer will push the overall spam >>>> score up? >>>> >>>> Thots? >>>> >>>> >>> If a spammer is using the same sending address over and over again, >>> blacklist them entirely. >>> >>> That said, I've never seen a spammer re-use the same address twice. >>> >> My understanding is "the other side". you get a spam and awl gives it a >> negative score. you run sa-learn and you want this to "nuke" the awl >> entry because if awl gives a too negative score, then sa-learn is >> useless (unless BAYES_99 is set to a very high value). >> >> > That sounds like you have a broken trust path. It seems unlikely you'd > have gotten nonspam from the same address *AND* IP address before. >
I am thinking about this case: Joe the spammer bombs you with mail that is not detected as spam. he gets a negative awl. so the questions are: - if user passes all the message to sa-learn, will that nuke the negative awl value? - is it enough to pass few messages? (in short, does "manual" training have more "weight" than automatic awl learning?)
