Here are a bunch to try. I've had to whitelist all of these at some point
or another. And if you get the html versions and digest versions of other
things, that makes them much more likely to trip SA.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/email-newsletters.html
http://www.weather.com/services/
h
Ross Vandegrift said:
> Just to be a curious PITA... where do you go if the GA finds that SCE
> and UCE are essentially similar? We'll end up with a very neutered set
> of rules.
nope -- the good ones, that kill UCE with few FPs (like rules that spot
forged headers), get high scores, whereas t
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:46:23PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> As a result I'm now collecting a corpus of nonspam SCEs, using a few
> common FP'ing SCE sources. BTW if anyone knows of more FP'ing SCE
> sources, I'd appreciate if they posted them; the more the better.
The Amphenol Connector news
Justin Mason wrote:
> As a result I'm now collecting a corpus of nonspam SCEs, using a few
> common FP'ing SCE sources. BTW if anyone knows of more FP'ing SCE
> sources, I'd appreciate if they posted them; the more the better.
The e-mail club at www.newbury.com is a good one -- It's a weekly lis
Ross Vandegrift said:
> Obviously an interim solution is to whitelist, but long term is probably
> harder. What kind of SCE, like MSDN newsletters, product updates, etc
> is in the corpus for the GA? Maybe seeding the corpus with a bigger set
> of these type of mails will have some interesting
> > > It's quite clear that most of this list does not consider
> > > all advertisement to be spam, particularly when attached to a valid
> > > personal email by a third-party service.
> >
> > Cool. So we're all in agreement then. Except for Marc.
>
> So what brilliant metric do you have in min
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:43:24PM -0400, rODbegbie wrote:
> > It's quite clear that most of this list does not consider
> > all advertisement to be spam, particularly when attached to a valid
> > personal email by a third-party service.
>
> Cool. So we're all in agreement then. Except for Marc
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Hmm, I think that Marc, being one of the most active and prolific
> posters to this list
Prolific != Useful.
> certainly understands SA much better than most.
> Certainly better than I do, and I suspect better than you do "rOD".
Yeah. What do I know? Only been contributi
