Very interesting data indeed -- and a testament to the accuracy of the SpamAssassin rules weighting process.
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Warren Togami wrote: > While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when averaged > across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in indirect ways > including: > > * Pushing the score beyond the auto-learn threshold for things like Bayes to > function without manual intervention. > * The albeit controversial method where some automated spam trap blacklists > use whitelists to help determine if they really should list an IP address. Another indirect benefit (according to other users of our whitelists) is that when they implement a new spam-blocking method, the whitelists serve as kind of a safety valve to let legitimate mail through even when the new rule turns out to have false positives. Site-specific whitelists are important for this, too. > That being said, whitelists should be constantly policed to maintain their > reputation and trust levels. Agreed. -- J.D. Falk <jdf...@returnpath.net> Return Path Inc
