Gary Funck writes:
> I noticed the same thing. Seems like this can be a bit of problem for
> those of us who would like to collect spam (and mis-classified ham) that
> that is later fed to sa-learn, or that is used to calibrate local scores
> via mass check. It is my understanding that the Bayes s
I noticed the same thing. Seems like this can be a bit of problem for those of
us
who would like to collect spam (and mis-classified ham) that that is later fed
to sa-learn, or
that is used to calibrate local scores via mass check. It is my understanding
that the
Bayes scoring, and various rules p
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:31:16AM -0600, Mark Miller wrote:
> Question... Since I upgraded to 2.55, messages that have been marked as spam
> and tossed into the spam folder are missing a lot of the path headers. For
> example, below is the header of a busted message. Most of the path has been
Gary wrote, before completely checking the facts:
> I noticed the same thing [that Received headers
> were seemingly missing in spam that had been
> reported by SA].
Before writing that reply, I quickly looked at the beginning
of a big spam mbox that I've collected since last year. As
already
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:31:16AM -0600, Mark Miller wrote:
> Question... Since I upgraded to 2.55, messages that have been marked as spam
> and tossed into the spam folder are missing a lot of the path headers. For
> example, below is the header of a busted message. Most of the path has been
