Am 20.09.2014 um 23:54 schrieb RW: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:48:05 +0200 > Reindl Harald wrote: > >> http://www.antivirushelptool.com/spamassassin/header/USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL >> that's too much and gives even a message on systems where >> BAYES_99 and BAYES_999 would reach 8.0 a negative score > > Do you have any evidence for it being too much? It seems about right > to me. > > If you have an actual problem I'd suggest you use unwhitelist_from_dkim > locally and report the domain so it can be considered for delisting. > > The dkim default whitelist contains domains that send a lot of > autogenerated and bulk mail, but have a very low probabilty of sending > spam
how can -7.5 be right? it bypasses unconditional any bayse regardless if it is trained with 100, 1000 or 10000 messages ham / spam and that can not be the the right thing there are in summary way too much whitelists with too high scores and the problem is that many senders are on a lot of them like 4 or 5 IADB whitelists which gives a total WL count with no way to get a clear spam message blocked frankly i have faced *clear* spam messages listed on Mailspike, IADB multiple times hit a bayes of 100% and some other spam tages but still get a negative score by excessive whitelisting
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
