At 07:56 PM 11/22/03 -0800, John Oliver wrote:
> 1) The Swen virus is not spam. It should be caught by anti-virus
> software, not by anti-spam software.
It's email that I don't want. It has a predictable From: and/or
Subject: and so should be able to be scored very high.
Agreed that swen emails ma
At Sun Nov 23 06:30:46 2003, Robert Menschel wrote:
>
> >> Do you have Bayes turned on? Bayes is a life saver here.
>
> JO> I have no idea. How would I know?
>
> 1) Check the headers of emails processed by SA. If they include an
> autolearn=(no, or ham, or spam), then I believe Bayes is turned
Hi,
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:56:07 -0800 John Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 06:24:38PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hello John,
> >
> > Saturday, November 22, 2003, 4:24:01 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > JO> I s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello John,
Saturday, November 22, 2003, 7:56:07 PM, you wrote:
RM>> 1) The Swen virus is not spam. It should be caught by anti-virus
RM>> software, not by anti-spam software.
JO> It's email that I don't want. It has a predictable From: and/or
JO>
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 06:24:38PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello John,
>
> Saturday, November 22, 2003, 4:24:01 PM, you wrote:
>
> JO> I started using the default setting of 5 in user_prefs. This caught
> JO> *very* little spam. Most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello John,
Saturday, November 22, 2003, 4:24:01 PM, you wrote:
JO> I started using the default setting of 5 in user_prefs. This caught
JO> *very* little spam. Most of the Swen virus emails, for example,
JO> still get through with scores of about 2
I started using the default setting of 5 in user_prefs. This caught
*very* little spam. Most of the Swen virus emails, for example, still
get through with scores of about 2.something But marking as spam at 2.5
is already causing too much collateral damage for mailing lists. I have
to be missing
