> Well, the initial idea behind the AWL was to exploit the fact that > spammers typically forge their From addresses randomly, whereas legit > senders do not.
I've found that a surprising number of spammers don't bother to use different From addresses between spam runs. Another thing I run into is that I receive spam on 10-20 separate addresses, so often I'll get 10 copies of the same spam in the space of an hour or two, all with the same From address. > I put it in a few weeks ago, and since then I've noticed a couple of > spammers in my feed who are getting through because of this, so it may be > time to recant on this point, and remove this behaviour again. The bad > points are outweighing the good, unfortunately. Agreed. Until I reset my AWL yesterday, I noticed that about half of the spam messages that came in with a score less than 10 had a negative AWL adjustment. > I'll check in the reversion now... I guess this means we'll need to > do a 2.43 soonish. This does seem to be causing some confusion. -- Michael Moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "The purpose of life is to fight maturity." --Dick Werthimer ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
