Re: [SAtalk] Rules analysis

2002-05-01 Thread Craig R Hughes
Bart Schaefer wrote: BS> So about all you could say from just this analysis is that rules that were BS> never hit could possibly be deleted. ...except that there is probably network-geographic disparity in spam -- some people receive different spam than others, and so just because you're not see

Re: [SAtalk] Rules analysis

2002-05-01 Thread Tom Eastep
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote: > > > I find this quite interesting, beucase it gives and example of how > > ineffective some of the rules have become. (NIGERIAN_SCAM, for example) > > There are a couple of things to note about this analysis:

Re: [SAtalk] Rules analysis

2002-05-01 Thread Bart Schaefer
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote: > I find this quite interesting, beucase it gives and example of how > ineffective some of the rules have become. (NIGERIAN_SCAM, for example) There are a couple of things to note about this analysis: (1) It doesn't account for duplication. If you got