> -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Vandegrift [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:07 PM > To: Larry Gilson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Bayes mis-learning problem > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Larry Gilson wrote: > > http://useast.spamassassin.org/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.html#learning%20op > > tions > > > > bayes_ignore_header header_name > > ::bangs head on wall:: How did I miss *that*? Thanks for correcting > my careless reading.
No worries. We are all victims of missing things, especially in a stressful situation. > In a broader sense though, shouldn't fields like To: be excluded by > default? It seems like if I receive more than 50% spam, this is a > receipe for disaster. Of course, some spam won't have a valid To: > field, but it seems like constant things like this will be very bad > arbitors. That seems like a reasonable assumption in that specific case. However, it may not be a good assumption with the large audience that SA serves. Some people get more spam than ham, others get more ham than spam, and yet others get roughly even amounts. It sounds like your experience is more on the extreme upper-end of spam/ham ratio. I would think that at either end of the spectrum though, the To: field is not a good indicator of either spam or ham regardless of the numbers. Regards, Larry ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
