fre, 2003-01-31 kl. 23:18 skrev Tony L. Svanstrom:
> TE> If there had been a you-must-expect-spam-from-our-posters warning on
> TE> this list, I would have expected it as something natural. As it was, it
> TE> took me by surprise. In future it won't :-)
> This is a list about a product that batt
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 the voices made Tony Earnshaw write:
TE> If there had been a you-must-expect-spam-from-our-posters warning on
TE> this list, I would have expected it as something natural. As it was, it
TE> took me by surprise. In future it won't :-)
This is a list about a product that battle
Being the "joker" that was the cause of this thread I can only support
the response of others that such a reaction to a posting in *this* list
amazes me a bit. Just wanted to share as much info as necessary and that
obviously will sometimes create false negatives My mail was not
meant to offend
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 11:54, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> Luckily I have a test rig and no-one but the spammer has got hurt up to
> now (apart from postings to this list, used as examples). As for the
> Bayesian stuff is concerned, its trigger for learning remains on 12.
Actually, I'm curious about tha
On 31 Jan 2003, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> This joker/subscriber set off my automatic smtp 550 mail refusal system
> [...]
> I've gzipped his offending mail and attached it, so that people can see
> *why* it was refused (it got 9.1 points, trigger is 5.0).
A 5.0 trigger is much too low (IMO) for gen
