Craig R Hughes writes: > The right way is actually to have the AWL form a prediction based on a > more sophisticated predictive model, including a zero-frequency > estimate for senders who are not in the whitelist. The weight > provided by the AWL in cases where there is a-priori data about a > sender should depend on the number of messages sent so far, instead of > using the a-priori mean as 50% of the final score, the %age should > shift over time. There are well known ways of doing this optimally, > but my reference book on the subject is up in Sausalito, and I'm down > here in Menlo Park, 60-odd miles away. I suppose I could go look > things up online... If only I hadn't smoked all that pot as a > youngster, my memory might be good enough now to do it w/out reference > books :) Or if I were less mathematically lazy, I could probably > derive it from stuff I do remember.
Does this also factor in the total number of senders seen in addition to the number of messages received? It seems like that's also a factor. Also, it seems like we're lacking a good way to whitelist addresses found in our own outgoing email in addition to incoming email. One could Cc: oneself and have procmail pipe to "spamassassin -W" option, but I only want messages in the To: or Cc: to be added. Dan _______________________________________________________________ Hundreds of nodes, one monster rendering program. Now that's a super model! Visit http://clustering.foundries.sf.net/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
