RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread David Barker
: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:52 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme Hi Dave, I'm breaking this into two discussions as they are two

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
. Best Regards, Andy From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David Barker Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 12:12 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme Just a thought. We would have

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread Pete McNeil
On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Dave, Hm yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the config file, you would have could cover the reputation range from -1 to +1 in 0.1 step increments. Not elegant but would have the same effect as

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Dave, Hm - yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the config file, you would have could cover the reputation range from -1

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-03 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi Dave, I'm breaking this into two discussions as they are two different topics. The REAL point of Pete's input (and my suggestion) for SNFIPREP is that the reputation scale of -1 through +1 should NOT just result in either ONE positive or ONE negative weight option. Your example: