On 01/23, [email protected] wrote: > I believe __RCVD_IN_DNSWL should include the rest of these rules? So > assuming HI, MED, LOW, and NONE have the right numbers, __RCVD_IN_DNSWL > should be .3936% of spam (not 0.1320%), and 46.6180% of ham (not 20.2586%)?
That could be my fault. I'm not actually using the normal dnswl rules - I'm doing dnswl tests at postfix, inserting a header based on the results, and then I have my own dnswl SA rules that use those headers. It should have exactly the same results, except I have no __RCVD_IN_DNSWL. So for my own purposes, I can just sum up HI/MED/LOW/NONE instead of using __RCVD_IN_DNSWL. And stuff should otherwise be the same. Does anybody else care? -- "When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain http://www.ChaosReigns.com
