On 30/09/2005, at 10:56 PM, Gerrit Holl wrote: > Tony Meyer wrote: > >> X-Spambayes-Classification: ham; 0.048 >> X-Spambayes-Evidence: '*H*': 0.90; '*S*': 0.00; 'bug.': 0.07; >> 'flagged': 0.07; >> "i'd": 0.08; 'bayes': 0.09; 'from:addr:ihug.co.nz': 0.09; >> 'really,': 0.09; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.14; >> 'from:addr:t-meyer': 0.16; 'from:name:tony meyer': 0.16; >> 'obvious,': 0.16; 'spambayes': 0.16; 'subject:Guido': 0.16; >> 'trolling,': 0.16; 'regret': 0.82; 'lee,': 0.91; 'viagra': 0.91; >> 'mailings': 0.93; 'probability': 0.93 > >> This is a feature, not a bug. It's the same feature that means that >> messages talking about spam on the spambayes mailing list, or the >> legitimate mail I get about viagra <wink>, get through to me. >> > > True. However, most mail to this mailinglist has less than 0.001 spam > probability. As you can see, this one had 0.048 - a vast score, almost > enough to put it in my unsure box. It seems to be just not hammy > enough. > It's interesting to see that no none of the foul language words > used by > Xah Lee ever occurs in any spam I receive - spam is not that stupid.
Unless I'm misreading things, that's *my* message that scored 0.048 (the "from:addr:ihug.co.nz", "from:name:tony meyer", and "spambayes" tokens make it seem that way)... =Tony.Meyer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
