Matt Kettler Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:16 AM
> At 10:10 AM 12/12/2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote:
> >I have found that AWL works quite well and I keep it enabled. The only
time
> >that it is a pain is if I send myself or someone else a test using GTUBE.
> >That f's up the AWL until I send a
At 10:10 AM 12/12/2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote:
I have found that AWL works quite well and I keep it enabled. The only time
that it is a pain is if I send myself or someone else a test using GTUBE.
That f's up the AWL until I send a few hams. There's a way to remove the
sender from the AWL but I c
At 01:46 PM 12/12/03 +, Peter McGarvey wrote:
pts rule name description
-- --
-4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.]
56 AWL
Peter McGarvey Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:46 AM
> I've seen several instanaces where the AWL mechanism has cause non-spam
> email to be classed as spam. Here is example report from one of these:
>
> -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
> 56 AWL
I've seen several instanaces where the AWL mechanism has cause non-spam
email to be classed as spam. Here is example report from one of these:
Content analysis details: (50.7 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
