John D. Hardin wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Peter Smith wrote: > > > The messages are simply a random stream of words, with punctuation > > scattered in them. No HTML, no URLs being advertised, no excessive > > capitalisation, just meaningless text. > > Technically, then, it's not spam. Spam requires a commercial message > of some sort. :)
That depends on whose definition you use. I would say that any unsolicited and unwanted email qualifies as spam. > > As such, SA is finding very little to complain about, and is even > > lowering the scoring because the bayes filtering deems it to be > > good. > > I'm torn about whether or not to train on such messages. I do hand > training so I keep pretty tight control over what gets trained. I use a very simple criteria for Bayes training. If it's something I want in the inbox, I train it as ham. If it's something I don't want in the inbox, I train it as spam. Messages with random garbage in them are definitely in the second set. :) -- Bowie
