Andy Figueroa wrote: > What is the evolving conventional wisdom regarding using AWL?
I have no idea, but I do know what *my* "wisdom" regarding the AWL is. We don't use the AWL because it gave us problems. I have no idea wether others have had the same problems. 1: Some ham was given very high spam scores because before the first legit mail from some senders we had received a some high scoring spam from the same adresses. 2: Some spam was given very low scores because they came from (forged) senders that had previously sent very low scoring ham. 3: Checking the logs and doing some calculations, I found that the AWL was almost never important in pushing a mail in the right direction. Just about all mail had allready been scored ham/spam correctly without the AWL. So, the AWL simply didn't fit together with out incoming mail flow. It is possible that an AWL that takes SPF, DKIM/DomainKeys into account might be better. Now, that was when we started to use SpamAssassin a couple of years ago. Things might well be different today. But, today we're allready using another custom system in MIMEDefang insteat. This system only cares about maiul addresses addresses if they have passed SPF, DomaninKeys or DKIM. It completely bypasses SpamAssassin for mail coming from relays or such addresses that has sent enough ham and *no* spam in the past. Since this system means that a lot of legit mail never has to go through SpamAssassin at all, I like it better than the AWL anyway. Together with greet-pause, a selective greylist, and an automatic relay black list this means that the majority of mails sent here never has to bee checked by SpamAssassin. Regards /Jonas -- Jonas Eckerman, FSDB & Fruktträdet http://whatever.frukt.org/ http://www.fsdb.org/ http://www.frukt.org/
