On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>> I can change the quarantining to be >4 if ppl want, which should
>>>> greatly reduce the # of messages going through ...
>>>
>>> Sounds like a good idea to me.
>>
>> 'k, I'll put it down to 4 tonight, and increase the frequency I check for
>> false-positives accordingly, to make sure that I don't get a big spike as
>> a result ...
>
> Hmm, I think keeping it at 5 is a good idea, seeing how 2 of those were
> being substracted by the AWL and you've just cleared that.
>
> Maybe what we need is a way to remove a particular domain from the AWL
> instead?
Actually, I was thinking of disabling the AWL feature altogether ... it
might make a few extra false-positives to need to release, but I doubt it
will make a huge difference ...
Maybe disable AWL and leave score threshold at 5 ... ? I can adjust
after, based on # of false positives ... if false positives don't go up,
then without AWL causes no adverse problems ... then I can look at
adjusting score threshold down while watching for false-positives ...
