On 2/28/02 5:28 PM, "Scott Walde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it make sense to take a look at the ratio of spam to non-spam for
> each given rule, and to constrain the score to either -ve or +ve depending
> on which way the ratio leaned? This way, "monsterhut" may wander
> randomly, but i
On 2/28/02 7:06 AM, "Shane Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves having its spam score
At 09:06 AM 2/28/2002 -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
>
>> While some of the negative scores (like DEAR_SOMEBODY) might have
>> really turned into legitimate indicators of non-spam, I don't think
>> any message deserves
