On 10/05/2010 10:46 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > I'd have to check the logs, but it could be that we're not meeting the > minimum ham/spam results that are required to generate an update. I've > got it set to a minimum of 150,000 ham and spam each.
Yeah, since early April the ham results have fallen below the 150k message threshold to about 143k messages. 150k was already quite a bit lower than I was really comfortable with but I guess we could lower it if necessary. Spam results for the weekly mass-check since May 1 are way under the 150k threshold at 50k and 35k. This will block an update for the entire week. Daryl
