On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:09:29 +0100 RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:56:35 -0400 > Matt Kettler <mkettler...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Please be aware the AWL is NOT whitelist, or a blacklist, and the > > scores don't really quite work the way they look. The AWL is > > essentially an averager, and as such, it's sometimes going to assign > > negative scores to spam sometimes. > > And it works from its own version of the score that ignores > whitelisting and bayes scores. So if learning a spam leads to the next > spam from the same address getting a higher bayes score, that benefit > isn't washed-out by AWL. I take that back, I thought the the BAYES_XX rules were ignored by AWL, but they aren't. Personally I think BAYES should be ignored by AWL, emails from the same "from address" and ip address will have a lot of tokens in common. They should train quickly, and there shouldn't be any need to "damp-out" that learning.
