har har to the 'including forum moderators' bit
trying to single us out eh?
I like your anti bonded senders bit - how about adding that to the wiki with a suggestion of half instead of 0 (call it "reduce impact of bonded senders" or something)
Improving Anti-spam system - Zimbra :: Wiki
Instead of tag & move in one motion - I think it would be cool to have three levels by default:
-It takes a sec to understand because 'tag' is where the the x-spam header/flags apply; therefore I won't use the word 'tag' below but we all know marking is the first step.
-Move to junk/spam folder @ somewhere between 25% (5pts) to 33% (6.6pts)
-But change it so the level for applying a ***SPAM*** label is separate @ 50% (10pts)
-Kill @ 75% (15pts)
I do like how the dsn cutoff level (delivery status notifications) is now mapped to the kill level for v5. As in my view 20 was always pointless, why spend effort telling the spammer you got the message if you're just going to discard the message anyway ya know?
Just had an interesting thought on the AWL but I'll add it to that thread there in a sec.
EDIT:
/forums/administrators/12126-correcting-poisoned-auto-whitelist-awl-2.html#post64742
Oh, and for the past year or two I have become graylisting fanatic that's for sure. It's so funny because all the spammers would have to do is spend a little more cpu time/bandwidth/adhere to the RFC's, and they would get their message to a lot more people; but their stupidity is my benefit I guess. Those 'wealthy Nigerian prince's just looking for a way to offload their money' seem to need a lesson on that - ssh don't tell em!