Actually, using -a with -S should increase the false _negative_ rate, not the false positive rate, since it will lower the AWL score for a spammy sender to around 5.
C Duncan Findlay wrote: DF> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:34:54PM +0200, Michael Stauber wrote: DF> > Hi Craig, DF> > DF> > > The -S flag to spamd should also help greatly in constrained hardware DF> > > situations. DF> > DF> > Yes, I know. It sure is a great way to cut back the load, but the scoring gets DF> > a little less effective and I noticed a few more false positives. Can't be DF> > avoided the way -S works, sure. So I usually go with -d -a -c -m 5 and if I DF> > need to cut back further then I add -L (local tests only) and lastly -S DF> > DF> DF> -a and -S don't play particularly well together :-( That's the cause DF> of your false positives. _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
