Doh! Yes of course -- I forgot about adding info to the report. I'll do that now.
C On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 02:16, Michael Moncur wrote: > I've just been toying with the new auto-whitelist and was convinced it wasn't > working for a while because the spam reporting is a bit confusing. Case in > point, this report from a deliberately spammy email I sent myself: > > X-Spam-Report: 6.62416666666667 hits, 5 required; > * 1.0 -- Subject contains lots of white space > * 0.5 -- Subject has an exclamation mark > * 1.0 -- BODY: Contains a tollfree number > * 1.4 -- BODY: One hundred percent guaranteed > * 3.5 -- BODY: Contains word 'AMAZING' > * 1.8 -- From and To the same address > * 1.5 -- Subject contains a unique ID number > > There's no indication here that the AWL was involved in the scoring, but if you > add up the listed scores, you get a total of 10.7, and the score ended up at > 6.6 - so the whitelist is working fine. I think this is a much better system > than the previous one. > > I'd love to see something like this at the end of the spam report to avoid > confusion: > * -4.1 -- Whitelist: Correction based on sender's history > > While I'm at it, it looks like either the score in the spam report or the > correction applied by the AWL would benefit from rounding... > > -- > michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ > "I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean." > -- G. K. Chesterton > > > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
