-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Larry Gilson writes: > > 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. Actually, it works quite well. Some people get more spam than ham to specific To addrs, so those become spam signs -- but once a ham arrives at those addrs, the ham signs outweigh the To spam-sign and redeem the mail. At least, that's how it worked out in our testing; initially we did not tokenise these headers, but in testing, we found that they did increase accuracy. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFADLAQQTcbUG5Y7woRAmWEAJ41WoPfsySY7bqrV9v0SNJg3a5aKQCg2NzO 7glu3sxwPjIhB5jh/jvtzGg= =9MLq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------- 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
