On 03/09/2017 06:29 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:26 PM, Axb wrote:
On 03/09/2017 06:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:04 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
Compared to RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjusted down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB hits
On 3/9/2017 12:26 PM, Axb wrote:
On 03/09/2017 06:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:04 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
Compared to RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjusted
down
to 0.5 back in September, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB hits about a tenth as much,
atm there's a ton of
On 03/09/2017 06:14 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/9/2017 12:04 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
Well, not based on mass checks or any advanced analysis or anything, it
just stops obvious Facebook etc ham being marked as spam, so working
much better than the previous score of 3.253.
Compared to RCVD_
On 3/9/2017 12:04 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
Well, not based on mass checks or any advanced analysis or anything, it
just stops obvious Facebook etc ham being marked as spam, so working
much better than the previous score of 3.253.
Compared to RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, which I think Axb manually adjuste
On 09/03/17 13:26, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 8:22 AM, Cedric Knight wrote:
>> I've reduced the score on my installation to 0.5. Would this kind of
>> thing be prevented by more people contributing to the mass checks? Or
>> could it be adjusted downwards as Alex suggested?
>
> I don't
On 3/9/2017 8:22 AM, Cedric Knight wrote:
I've reduced the score on my installation to 0.5. Would this kind of
thing be prevented by more people contributing to the mass checks? Or
could it be adjusted downwards as Alex suggested?
I don't know if it's a floating rule but it sounds like it nee
