On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:09:04 -0400 Matt Kettler <mkettler...@verizon.net> wrote:
> RW wrote: > > The much more common scenario is that the first spam hits BAYES_50 > > and subsequent BAYES_99 hits are countered by a negative AWL score. > > > Technically, this only counters half the score. It also gets "paid > back" later. It raises the stored average that will apply to > subsequent messages. but there's only a benefit if the BAYES_XX score falls, otherwise the distortion to the score just gets less bad - I don't see how you can describe that as "paid back". > I'd also argue it's a rather rare case. Most of my spam hits BAYES_99 > the first shot around, and most has varying sender address and IP. The > odds of one having increasing score and the same sender address/ip > seems extraordinarily unlikely to me. So what's the point of including BAYES_99 in AWL? If something scarcely every makes a difference, and on the occasion it does, gets it wrong more often then it gets it right, I don't see the point in keeping it.
