Hello Chris, Tuesday, January 20, 2004, 2:41:38 PM, you wrote:
CS> I'm not sure where the post is, but about 3 weeks ago I think Dallas CS> put a semi-end to the spell-checker debate :) He ran one and the CS> outcome wasn't so good. Agreed -- we have too many lazy or careles corespondents ;-) for general spell-checking to do much good. Jennifer and I have been battling this with her new rule set and my dozens of lazy people who can't be bothered to put a space after a period before a new sentence. However, approximation technology, which identifies key words (such as found in antidrug), and tests for near-matches, can be beneficial. I have a number of rules which test for obfuscation of valid words. I've seen valid email go by with the V-word in it, but ONLY spam with an obfuscated V-word. Sex is discussed all the time, but > /\b(?!sex)s\.?e\.?x\b/i has appeared only in spam. I see similar benefits to the approximation approach. I hace my dingres ceossrd (how many perplr try typing wirh their dingres ceossrd?). Bob Menschel ------------------------------------------------------- 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
