Re: Sender Address Verification
Richard Laager <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.mimedefang |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/23/2016 12:22 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > On 11/22/2016 12:55 PM, Bill Cole wrote: >> the SAV rule was never decisive in a correct SA 'spam' determination > > Thanks for sharing. This is good information. > > I've made a note to re-evaluate my SAV rules after the holiday. I have > some test harnesses to determine whether an individual rule "made a > difference" in the outcome of the spam decision. I looked at 6 full days of my results. About 3.7% of the messages that make it to SpamAssassin scoring (RBLs, attachment extension checks, and ClamAV are earlier) were blocked *only* because of sender address verification. That is, they were over the threshold with SAV, but under the threshold without SAV. -- Richard _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang