auto whitelisting

Anthony Peacock a.peacock at
Wed Aug 23 12:08:22 IST 2006


Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 22/08/06, Matt Kettler <mkettler at> wrote:
>> Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd agree with Matt. I always recommend you turn the thing off as it
>> > tends to let spam through when you don't want it to..
>> Well, that's true.. but it can also cause spam to be tagged when it would
>> otherwise be missed.
>> Remember.. the AWL is NOT a whitelist..
> Exactly!
> I can say for a fact that the AWL has been keeping my false
> rejection/tagging rate well down, even after applying some things
> (ImageInfo mainly) to get a grip on the image based spam. Without the
> AWL, many a financial newsletter would have gone down the drain... As
> it is now, I cannot find one case where they've got tagged or removed.
> Haven't seen the wildly fluctuating "missfires" of the AWL that some
> report either.
> So I'll be keeping my AWL on, for that crucial score averaging I need.

I have to agree with Glenn here.  On the whole the AWL works very well 
for me, helping push emails in the correct direction.  Often the AWL 
prevents false positives for me.

On the rare occasions where AWL is contributing to an incorrect score it 
is not usually the only problem, and it is easy enough to clear the AWL 
entry for that sender.

But of course, like Bayes, YMMV.

Anthony Peacock
CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
"If you have an apple and I have  an apple and we  exchange apples
then you and I will still each have  one apple. But  if you have an
idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us
will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw

More information about the MailScanner mailing list