Re: [SAtalk] Message not SPAM; score is 5.1 :-/

2002-10-20 Thread listuser
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Mike Burger wrote: > Well, since most people I know aren't stupid enough to type their email in > all caps, I don't have to worry about those getting flagged as spam. > > If you've got people who email you in that manner, you might want to > remind them that doing so is aki

Re: [SAtalk] Message not SPAM; score is 5.1 :-/

2002-10-19 Thread Mike Burger
Well, since most people I know aren't stupid enough to type their email in all caps, I don't have to worry about those getting flagged as spam. If you've got people who email you in that manner, you might want to remind them that doing so is akin to yelling, as well as just plain ugly. On Sat,

Re: [SAtalk] Message not SPAM; score is 5.1 :-/

2002-10-19 Thread Jon Gabrielson
I would personally consider the following email spam, but more to the point, I get very little ALLCAP spams, and the rules LINES_OF_YELLING and UPPERCASE_25_50 are more often flagged on legitimate mail. I was wondering if other people are finding that these rules are actually effective in flagging

[SAtalk] Message not SPAM; score is 5.1 :-/

2002-10-18 Thread Jeremy Kister
I'm just wondering if anyone can see a pattern in this email to give negative points... It was not a spam, and just _barely_ broke the barrier. I'd rather modify/add rules than change the default threshold of 5. I've copied the exact email as I received it into this message (with email addresses o