AWL confusion

[Rich <rg...@ellerbach.com>]

Me new email host is using SA 3.0.1 and I have been watching what gets 
caught and what doesn't so I can do some user_prefs tuning if necessary. 
But I don't understand what is going on with this AWL stuff. The host 
service has it turned on and I get a non-spam message with this score 
report in it:

X-Spam-Report:

	* -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	*      [score: 0.0000]
	*   17 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list? 
Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero) 
if it's in a WL?

Rich

RE: AWL confusion

[Chris Blaise <cb...@esoft.com>]

	I agree it's a very misleading term.  

	The easiest and most appropriate term I've heard is "historical
averaging". 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Landry [mailto:billl@pointshare.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 7:51 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: AWL confusion

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich" <rg...@ellerbach.com>

> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <rg...@ellerbach.com> wrote:
> >> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto
white-list?
> >> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral
zero)
> >> if it's in a WL?
> >
> > You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains exactly 
> > why you're seeing the scores you are.
>
> Ahh, so AWL is not a "white-list" in any way - it's a "sender history"
> score. That is quite misleading.

I agree, and that why I thought that "auto weight leveling" was a more
appropriate and correctly descriptive name than "auto whitelist".  But
that's just my 2 cents...

Bill

Re: AWL confusion

[Bill Landry <bi...@pointshare.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rich" <rg...@ellerbach.com>

> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <rg...@ellerbach.com> wrote:
> >> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto
white-list?
> >> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral
zero)
> >> if it's in a WL?
> >
> > You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains exactly
> > why you're seeing the scores you are.
>
> Ahh, so AWL is not a "white-list" in any way - it's a "sender history"
> score. That is quite misleading.

I agree, and that why I thought that "auto weight leveling" was a more
appropriate and correctly descriptive name than "auto whitelist".  But
that's just my 2 cents...

Bill

Re: AWL confusion

[Rich <rg...@ellerbach.com>]

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <rg...@ellerbach.com> wrote:
>> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
>> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
>> if it's in a WL?
>
> You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains exactly
> why you're seeing the scores you are.

Ahh, so AWL is not a "white-list" in any way - it's a "sender history"
score. That is quite misleading.

Rich

Re: AWL confusion

[Rob MacGregor <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:02:06 -0500, Rich <rg...@ellerbach.com> wrote:
> So why on earth is a 17-score given to an address in an auto white-list?
> Shouldn't an address get a negative score (or, at least, a neutral zero)
> if it's in a WL?

You may want to read up on the AWL in the WIKI - it explains exactly
why you're seeing the scores you are.

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.
Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he 
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche