On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> 2. Single message from infrequent correspondant scores very high or very
> low. Let's say I send you a message which for some reason gets a -100
> bonus (badly constructed whitelist_from or something). Ok, now I'm in
> the AWL2 db as (-100,1).
Ooh,
Greg Ward wrote:
> Can anyone give real-world results for AWL in SA 2.1 yet?
Well, since I'm clever-sounding, here's my take: It's wa better than 2.0x,
but not yet ideal. In the following discussion, I'll call the original
(2.0x) AWL AWL1, and the new one AWL2. The problems come in a few
On 12 March 2002, Marsha Hanchrow said:
> Some of it was identifiable text, and just too tempting. OK, it's
> deleted. But what does one do when SA comes to a wrong conclusion? When
> it adds the sender of a piece of junk that it didn't catch to the
> auto-whitelist, there must be some way t
