jdow wrote: > Ilan, you could adopt my strategy and simply turn off auto-whitelist > and delete the auto-whitelist file. I've seen too many mis-trained > auto-whitelists mentioned on this list to be at all comfortable with > it. The same can be said for auto-learn with Bayes. >
Are you sure they were mis-trained? Or were you just seeing cases of negative AWL scores in spam (which is perfectly normal)? http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/AwlWrongWay > At the VERY least set the thresholds for auto this and that MUCH wider > than they come stock. That won't affect the AWL at all. That only affects bayes. The AWL is an averager, so it "learns" every message. > > It appears you have a spam message yet auto-whitelist thinks it is > ham. No. The second message isn't spam. It's a spammy ham, or at least so the Ilan implies: "Anyway, I did as advised and ran spamassassin -D < test (instead of the --lint option) and I ran it twice on 2 messages from the same address (2nd was spammy). This way it does work as advertised" Note Ilan did not say it was spam, just spammy. Also note that Ilan considers this part to be *correct* behavior. So that means his AWL *correctly* deducted points from a message that would have been a FP otherwise. It's possible Ilan is using intentionally contrived emails here to force the case. (If it really was ham, you found a reason to sort spam into a > spam mailbox and at least glance at the trash before tossing it.)
