At 13:21 28/07/2003 +0100, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai MacTane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 July 2003 17:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Oops... running 2.60
>
>
> Actually, I doubt those BAYES_00 hits are doing you
At 7/28/03 05:21 AM , Tony Hoyle wrote:
I wipe the bayes db every couple of weeks to avoid this (over time
it starts giving more and more FNs). I wiped it again just after
sending the message, so it'll take a little while before the BAYES_00
creeps back again.
I had the same problem with Bayes...
> -Original Message-
> From: Kai MacTane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 July 2003 17:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Oops... running 2.60
>
>
> Actually, I doubt those BAYES_00 hits are doing you much
> good, either. If
> messages
At Fri Jul 25 16:42:09 2003, Tony Hoyle wrote: [reformatted]
> I've found 2.60 is a generaly bit better than 2.55, but recently the
> spammers have worked around it... I now get about a couple of dozen
> spams a day coming in with ridiculously low scores (<2, usually) -
> they're heavily exploitin
At 7/25/03 08:42 AM , Tony Hoyle wrote:
I've found 2.60 is a generaly bit better than 2.55, but recently the
spammers have worked around it... I now get about a couple of dozen spams
a day coming in with ridiculously low scores (<2, usually) - they're
heavily exploiting the low scoring HTML_IMAG
> -Original Message-
> From: Colin Henein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 July 2003 17:32
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Oops... running 2.60
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I've been running 2.60 for several months (must have picked
> the wrong download back there somewhere
