Robert J. Accettura wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:46:02 -0500: > Why focus and rely so heavily on what we > know will be causing this, rather than work to perfect spam detection in > ways that ONLY spammers can be detected. >
Why throw away one proven method which catches more spam than all the other methods *combined*? Adding new rules (and look at the hundreds of SA rules) doesn't mean you have to throw away the old ones, unless they start to generate a great amount of false positives. > The problem I see is HTML mail is intended, as is sending in plain text. I tell most people to send me text-only and they do so. Simple. and is tending to replace > plain text email. Doubt that. HTML email is available in most clients for about five years now. I can't see that a vast amount of legitimate personal email is using it. As a result, more false postive emails will occur in > 6 months, 1 year, and so on. > If that would really occur, simply adjust the html-related scores even to a *negative* rating. That's much better than not testing for HTML because you like it. Simply add a negative score for HTML mails and you get them. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Take your first step towards giving your online business a competitive advantage. Test-drive a Thawte SSL certificate - our easy online guide will show you how. Click here to get started: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0027en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
