Duncan Findlay wrote:
>But, tests meant to catch spam are ill-suited for determining
>non-spam. I agree that negative scores are a good thing, but only on
>tests designed to do that.
>
>The GA is amazing. But humans are smarter than computers (we have to
>program them after all). The GA is not perfect in all situations,
>especially since it is only as good as it's corpii (plural of corpus?).
>
>Furthermore, if tests are scored negatively, albeit being designed to
>catch spam, spammers are simply going to use them, making messages
>just as spammy (or even more?), but scoring less. Of course, these can
>be added to the corpus and everything will re-adjust, but it's
>pointless nonetheless.
>
I agree. Let's stop with the negative assignment of spam-catching traps.
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com
"We're smarter individually." -- Larry Niven
_______________________________________________________________
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
