Oh, oops. I'm not using spamd, yet, for lame historical reasons.
I'm calling spamassassin directly.
-Bill
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:37:11AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> To turn it off, don't turn it on -- ie omit the "-a" flag to spamd.
>
> C
>
> On Sat, 2002-02-02 at 10:46, Bill O'Hanlon
Get rid of the "-a" switch in spamd.
---
Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
> O'Hanlon
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 1:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] sitewide a
To turn it off, don't turn it on -- ie omit the "-a" flag to spamd.
C
On Sat, 2002-02-02 at 10:46, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:52:57AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> critical bugs in the 2.0x release. For now, people might consider turning
> off auto-whitelisting (
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:52:57AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> critical bugs in the 2.0x release. For now, people might consider turning
> off auto-whitelisting (particularly site-wide) if they don't want the
> false-negative rate to go up.
What's the best way to turn it off site-wide? I did
> Just to reassure people -- I firmly believe that autowhitelisting can do a
> very good job of reducing false positives from frequent non-spammer
> correspondents. There's just a flaw in the current algorithm which wasn't
> thought through terribly hard. Once I update the algorithm and re-relea
Just to reassure people -- I firmly believe that autowhitelisting can do a
very good job of reducing false positives from frequent non-spammer
correspondents. There's just a flaw in the current algorithm which wasn't
thought through terribly hard. Once I update the algorithm and re-release
AWL,
I think the only real solution to this problem (which is one I was aware of
-- it crops up quickly even with per-user whitelists) is to change the way
the auto-whitelisting works, to do the average score/regression to the mean
system I talked about a few days ago. It's an enhancement I'm planning
>
> How does solve my original problem of false negatives? all that it would
> take would be a few marginally spammy messages < 5 then once the
> threshhold
> is reached then they can Spam away!
>
> --
> Ed.
>
>
I've seen this happen already with some stuff from directclick.com. Now the
Spam h
>
>I was think about this exact same thing today, as I put SA into
> production for my 400+ users (800+ email accounts - and without a
> hiccup, I might add ;^). I wanted to have the default be to not filter
> because that's what people are used to, so I set the default theshold to
> 100 and
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
> I have been testing the auto_whitelist (AWL) feature sitewide in a single
> database and have come to realize that it does have a downside - namely that
> if false negatives get thru then eventually their address is added to the
> AWL and then SA will never c
I have been testing the auto_whitelist (AWL) feature sitewide in a single
database and have come to realize that it does have a downside - namely that
if false negatives get thru then eventually their address is added to the
AWL and then SA will never catch them as Spam. Any way around this? I a
11 matches
Mail list logo
