Charles Gregory wrote:
> Though again, legit senders that average negative are relatively rare
> (well, on my system, anyways).
For what it’s worth, I’ve set up SA to identify replies to the
organisation’s email. It looks at the In-Reply-To and References headers
(our Message-IDs have a distinctive domain that’s not in public DNS and
isn’t easily guessable) and looks for the organisation standard
signature (again, this is very unlikely to come up in spam).
Most replies have one or the other, and it’s fairly common for a
correspondent to have an average score of less than -10.
It means that AWL really does work as an auto-white-list for us.
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | ... clueless he is not. He's just selective about which
aprilcottage.co.uk | clues to pay attention to.
| -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
