On Monday 06 November 2006 21:50, John Rudd wrote: > And, I have in fact seen misses that had VERY low bayes scores (BAYES_00).
With no more info about the content of said misses it would be hard to say your bayes was poisoned. It would be even harder to see how spam would poison bayes to MISS things. Historically the idea of poison was to make bayes useless, and un-trustworthy by causing it to generate too many false positives. That essentially hasn't worked out too well. Its not too hard to imagine that sending spam to linux users that pretends to deal with issues pertaining to linux, but slipping a couple lines about <insert spam topic> might sneak by. But this hardly fits my definition of bayes poison. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
pgpuJIXkibOKb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
