Warren Togami wrote:
While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when
averaged across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in
indirect ways including:
* Pushing the score beyond the auto-learn threshold for things like
Bayes to function without manual
Warren Togami wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247#c49
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247#c51
It turns out that the ReturnPath and DNSWL whitelists have a
statistically insignificant impact on spamassassin's ability to
determine ham vs.
Warren Togami wrote:
While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when
averaged across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in
indirect ways including:
* Pushing the score beyond the auto-learn threshold for things like
Bayes to function without manual
Thank you, Warren. That (finally) gives some real perspective to this
mess, and gets some of the 'real' questions answered.
- C
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
I made a discovery today that surprised even myself. Using the rescore
masscheck and weekly masscheck logs while working
On 12/17/2009 11:27 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
If whitelists are to be enabled by default, I believe their score should
be moved considerably more toward zero.
/Jason
I don't necessarily disagree with this desire, as now we know the
whitelists actually are making almost zero difference to
Very interesting data indeed -- and a testament to the accuracy of the
SpamAssassin rules weighting process.
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
While whitelists are not directly effective (statistically, when averaged
across a large corpus), whitelists are powerful tools in
I made a discovery today that surprised even myself. Using the rescore
masscheck and weekly masscheck logs while working on Bug #6247 I found
some interesting details that throws a wrench into this lively debate.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247#c49
