Michael Moncur wrote:
MM> > Many moons ago, I submitted this rule (from my local config) to
MM> > counteract such problems:
MM> >
MM> > header Q_FOR_SELLER Subject =~ /Question for seller/
MM> > describe Q_FOR_SELLER Subject is eBay Question for seller
MM> > scoreQ_FOR
Q_FOR_SELLER was initially set to have a score of -4.0 -- why that score is
missing from current CVS is a mystery -- SA seems instead to be using the
default score of 1.0 for the message -- I'll do some tracking to figure out
how/when that happened. Meanwhile, I'll add the -4.0 back in. You can
> Many moons ago, I submitted this rule (from my local config) to
> counteract such problems:
>
> header Q_FOR_SELLER Subject =~ /Question for seller/
> describe Q_FOR_SELLER Subject is eBay Question for seller
> scoreQ_FOR_SELLER -4.0
>
> I'd have to go back th
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:00:24AM -0700, Marsha Hanchrow wrote:
> This is the accounting I got for a standard, boring, and completely
> legitimate response to an e-Bay question. These things previously
> got negative scores. Every such response will earn 5 of these 5.6
> points - only the 0.6
Is there that much "ebay question" spam in the collection the the GA is
run against? Seems to me that there should be some negative rules for
items that are known to originate from ebay.
Obviously, using whitelisting on the ebay addresses won't work, but
maybe on things like the 'subject is an eb
This is the accounting I got for a
standard, boring, and completely legitimate response to an e-Bay
question. These things previously got negative scores. Every
such response will earn 5 of these 5.6 points - only the 0.6 points for
NO_REAL_NAME is specific to this particular piece of mail.
Thi
