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
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:
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
