* "Keith C. Ivey" <kcivey@cpcug.org> [2004:02:25:23:55:15-0500] scribed:
> Michael D Schleif <mds@helices.org> wrote:
>
> > The problem is in the scores that I cannot present -- those that I have
> > -R'd and redisposed -- as I said. Those did *NOT* use
> > MDS_Remove_Subject; but, were from same mailing lists. They *ARE* spam;
> > but, scored as ham.
>
> They also wouldn't have had an adjustment of -25, which is what
> people have been surprised by in your description of your
> situation. The -25 results from the very high spam score
> caused by the 50-point rule. Without it, the adjustment would
> be much less -- though of course it will certainly sometimes
> cause messages' scores to be moved from spam range to the
> nonspam range.
I wish that I had saved the ideal examples. However, once I do
`spamassassin -R', and reprocess those messages, those examples are
gone. After the fact, I decided to post to this list. You have seen
the best examples that I have archived. MDS_Remove_Subject originally
scored +5, then 10, 20 and now 50, because these _obvious_, cut-and-dry
culprits should never be mistaken for ham -- never.
> > Nevertheless, skewing my point by taking only one (1) of my examples
> > does not bolster the value of AWL. In point of fact, I have witnessed
> > AWL -- as you call it, `insanely high AWL adjustment' -- skew mailing
> > list messages, and I began this thread in hopes of understanding how to
> > avoid this and to use AWL to my benefit.
>
> And people have wanted more information about your situation,
> because they haven't experienced anything like the problems you
> have. Thank you for posting the examples. I apologize for
> selecting one of them, but I didn't understand why you were
> posting it or the other four high-scoring examples you posted.
> They were classified as spam, so the system seems to be working
> as intended in those cases (I'm assuming you've already read
> http://wiki.spamassassin.org/w/AwlWrongWay ).
I posted those examples, such as they are, as evidence that I really get
AWL scores that high -- since some skeptics argued that that is not
possible. In fact, so far, everybody has accepted my examples as
examples of high AWL scores. To now argue that they are inadequate
examples of else, is arguably perverse ;>
> Along with those five examples of correctly identified spams,
> you did post two examples where the AWL adjustment may have
> caused a false negative. But in both cases the message
> triggered BAYES_00, which probably had a larger contribution to
> the miscategorization. Judging by those I'd say the real
> problem is spam being incorrectly autolearned as ham. Spam
> should not be getting BAYES_00 or BAYES_01, as it is in the
> majority of your examples. Maybe you should be blaming
> autolearning rather than autowhitelisting.
Hopefully, you notice that _those_ examples also include:
score MDS_Subject_Subscribe +15.0
I'll leave the math to those so inclined ;>
Actually, on further review, I thought that I showed an example with
that rule and its score; but, you get the idea. I have several custom
rules for which I have repeatedly increased the score, because AWL was
taking it away from me. Again, perhaps these type of personal spam are
handled better by procmail.
P.S., Whatever I do know about AWL, how can one message have _both_
BAYES_99 *AND* AWL of -5.4 ???
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--