Now, Im very confused. I have configured to NOT Use AWL. # Auto-Whitelist configuration # Deshabilitar Auto-whitelist use_auto_whitelist 0
in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf I have checked with spamassassin --lint the config and restart spamd. I am still seeing AWL triggered on the amavis log: Feb 22 13:35:20 xxx.yyy.zzz /usr/sbin/amavisd[5555]: (05555-07) spam_scan: hits=-2.045 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8,*AWL=-0.247* ,BAYES_50=0.001,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 :?????????????????????????? 2012/2/21 Duane Hill <[email protected]> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 15:18:30 UTC, > [email protected] confabulated: > > > On 2/21/12 10:11 AM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote: > >> rule AWL is triggered with a negative score. Reading the documentation > >> I think that the problem > >> was a wrong auto-learn thresold for HAM, the first week the system > >> starts to work. The initial > >> thresold for Ham was -0.001 and I think that this thresold causes a > >> lot of spam and backscatter addresses > >> was learned as non-spam addresses. Could be possible? > >> > > and, this is one reason why awl is deprecated, and disabled by default > > in all new SA installations for (2 years? someone correct me on the > time?) > > > http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_AWL.html > ... > use_auto_whitelist ( 0 | 1 ) (default: 1) > > Does that mean docs haven't changed to reflect yet? > > > Q: if you did not have that negative score, would you have marked those > > emails as spam? if answer is yes, disable AWL. > > > also, since you are using amavisd-new, you might want to ask specific > > (non AWL) questions on their mailing list about backscatter. they have > > a solution that might work better than AWL. > > > > > -- > If at first you don't succeed... > ...so much for skydiving. > > -- -- Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral <[email protected]>
