Am 11.12.2014 um 16:27 schrieb Kris Deugau:
Richard Damon wrote:
Minor nit, SPAM filters really don't determine compliance to the
standards, they determine the likelihood of a message being
"undesirable". If being 100% compliant to the RFCs made a message immune
to being detected as spam, then there would suddenly be a LOT of 100%
compliant messages being sent out as spam.
If someone has evidence (or even just have convinced themselves) that
the inclusion of a "Time Zone" comment in the date field is a good
predictor of a message being spam, then they will make such
determinations, and reject such message.
Spam blocking breaks some of the principles of the RFC in reliable
message delivery because people don't WANT those messages reliably
delivered, and for some strange reason the spammers aren't doing things
to clearly mark there messages as spam.
*nod* And then you add in the eye-crossing volume of variously
legitimate mail that is variously NOT standards-compliant...
hence you reject *score based* and train your bayse with some thousand
ham as well as spam messages to let it find differences based on
subjects, senders, content, errors....
the single standard violation is not the point, but the combination with
other signatures shared by a lot of junk but never or not often appear
in the identical combination of ham
spammers tend to make the same mistakes again and again including the
same typos in subjects over many years
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
0.000 0 5738 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 6446 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0 839854 0 non-token data: ntokens
-rw------- 1 sa-milt sa-milt 1,3M 2014-12-11 13:45 bayes_seen
-rw------- 1 sa-milt sa-milt 20M 2014-12-11 16:34 bayes_toks
-rw------- 1 sa-milt sa-milt 98 2014-08-21 17:47 user_prefs
