Philip Prindeville wrote:
litre, and if I'm feeling really silly, aluminium (I hate that word).
Aluminium rocks! Especially aluminium foil and aluminium airplanes.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Of course you could train your spell checker to your companies local
mail words.. however, at that point you've implemented a low-quality
version of a bayes checker.
and he can just use a bayesian classifier to implement his "feature".
training is easy:
- ham = all words
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>
>
>
>>>3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
>>>(Translation: management material)
>>>
>>>
>>I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
>>someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they
Matt Kettler wrote:
>Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>
>
>>Hello
>>
>>One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
>>point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
>>
>>Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
>>spelling of the t
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Also, the rule probably wouldn't detect misuses of "then" in place of
"than".
May bee yore you sirs half goad spelling, oar naught. Orphan, there
justice likely two right pore lee. Eye no this is write cause
Thunderbird excepts it. They're are know read lines hear.
Also, the rule probably wouldn't detect misuses of "then" in place of
"than". ;-)
(Nothing personal, lots of people, make that mistake, as well as
"insure"/"ensure", "effect"/"affect" and many similar ones.)
Seriously though, I get the feeling that a well-trained bayes database, which
to a bi
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>> 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
>> checker.
>>
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
> technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
> local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
> Rule No.1: If a rule is likely to hit more
> ham then spam due to certain circumstances,
> it is not a rule to consider implementing unless
> you know you'll never meet the circumstances -
> but then it's up to YOU to modify your local.cf
> and implement the rule ;)
You say to-may-to, I say to-m
"Gustafson, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 05.04.2006 17:11:10:
> > 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
> > checker.
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
> technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
> local
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
(Translation: management material)
I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce message
back telling them to turn on the s
> And how would you deal with messages in other languages? Over here 99%
> of messages in English are spam! AFAIK there's no language indicator
in
> email messages.
I wouldn't deal with messages in other languages. My clients are all
english speaking Americans, and we already block all foreign
> 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
> checker.
I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
> 2) FPs on email sent by folks of the
Paolo Cravero as2594 writes:
>
> Gustafson, Tim wrote:
>
> > Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
> > spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
> > exceeds, for example, 50%, then we can add a few points to the SPAM
> > score? I'm not su
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
> Hello
>
> One thing I've noticed about almost ALL spam that gets through at this
> point is that they have a LOT of misspelled (and obfuscated) words.
>
> Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
> spelling of the text parts of the message, and
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
Could SpamAssassin benefit from a filter that would actually check the
spelling of the text parts of the message, and if misspelled words
exceeds, for example, 50%, then we can add a few points to the SPAM
score? I'm not sure how to begin coding this, but I think it should
15 matches
Mail list logo
