On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:16:08PM -0800, Tomki wrote: > It's getting pretty bad... still a lot better than with anything else in > my experience, granted, but the number of false negatives really is rising. > > This example is a prime example, and really pretty amazing in the score:
Y 5 1:<1pv4ec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BAYES_99,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,HTML_50_70,HTML_FONT_COLOR_NAME,HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED,HTML_WEB_BUGS,T_HTML_50_70_IMGS3,T_HTML_CONSEC_IMGS01,T_HTML_CONSEC_IMGS01B,T_HTML_IMAGE_AREA11,T_HTML_MAX_IMG_RATIO04,T_HTML_MESSAGE,T_HTML_MIN_IMG_RATIO6,T_HTML_NUM_IMGS08,T_HTML_P1_40_60,T_HTML_P2_50_60,T_HTML_SHOUTING3,T_HTML_TAG_EXISTS_CENTER bayes=1 Looks pretty good to me actually. Granted, 4 points is from BAYES_99 (I like bayes=1), but there are a ton of T_ rules which only get .01 points at the moment. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "True hackers don't die, their ttl expires" - Unknown
msg10894/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
