On 13-Feb-2007, at 09:08, Alexis Manning wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
Am I worrying over nothing? I do seem to get spam only on those
accounts for which greylisting is inactive, but on those I get a LOT
that SA fails to tag, including just about every one of those image
spams with the 2K or
On 13-Feb-2007, at 08:39, Chris St. Pierre wrote:
This is where a user feedback look -- such as spam/ham reporting links
in your webmail client, or the equivalent training for desktop client
users -- can be really useful.
Ideally I'd like to have per-user bayes, but some of my users are
manag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Am I worrying over nothing? I do seem to get spam only on those
> accounts for which greylisting is inactive, but on those I get a LOT
> that SA fails to tag, including just about every one of those image
> spams with the 2K or so of seemingly randomish text in th
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, LuKreme wrote:
Now, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but BAYES_99 is hitting on 5% of ham? and
AWL on 35% of spam?
Keep in mind that AWL is slightly misnamed; it doesn't just whitelist,
it adjusts scores (both positively and negatively) based on previous
history. So the fac
